RMY auction pickups

[perezfan]

I liked that one too (and was an under-bidder). It would look great framed, and would make an excellent conversation piece for whoever won it.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I liked that one too (and was an under-bidder). It would look great framed, and would make an excellent conversation piece for whoever won it.

They're 3 parts to this image, Heads-Hands-Feet. I have the heads portion, I need the 2 other parts.

The search continues

albert

[perezfan]

Wow, those 3 panoramic shots would look amazing framed/displayed together.

Seems like a tough endeavor, but best of luck with it!

[Exhibitman]

I picked up these:

1922 Gene Tunney Hall Studio photo. I had another of these from the same shoot but sold it a few years ago, so happy to replace it:



1964 Terry Sawchuk, from the same photo session that was used to make his Topps card from 1964-65. Gotta wonder whether it was a team issue:

[pbspelly]

I picked this up. Great grandpa.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Wow, those 3 panoramic shots would look amazing framed/displayed together.

Seems like a tough endeavor, but best of luck with it!

That's what I'm trying to do.. to bad that "hands" photo got away

albert

[MyGuyTy]

Some great pickups guys! Congrats!

If anybody here picked up this photo from last month's auction (that I unfortunately missed due being out of town) and might be interested in selling, please PM me!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by sporteq

They're 3 parts to this image, Heads-Hands-Feet. I have the heads portion, I need the 2 other parts.

The search continues

albert

Albert,
Just curious, who are the players?

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Albert,
Just curious, who are the players?

Frank Crosetti, Red Rolfe, Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Bill Dickey, George Selkirk, Myril Hoag, Tony Lazzeri and Lefty Gomez.

Henry Yee had the feet a few years back.. I missed the auction by 5 Mins.

Albert

[MVSNYC]

Adam- congrats on the Tunney, it's stunning. I also love the script on the reverse.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Frank Crosetti, Red Rolfe, Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Bill Dickey, George Selkirk, Myril Hoag, Tony Lazzeri and Lefty Gomez.

Henry Yee had the feet a few years back.. I missed the auction by 5 Mins.

Albert

Super cool!
I hope that one of these days you find all 3 and bring them back together. Thanks!

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Super cool!
I hope that one of these you find all 3 and bring them back together. Thanks!

I have the faces.. Not the feet or hands. I'm shocked the hands went so high. I was thinking pre-auction sale of $300\400 at the most.

Thanks for your blessings

Albert

[Runscott]

Very fast, safe shipping - thanks Rhys!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Very fast, safe shipping - thanks Rhys!

+1 I received my Feller photo yesterday. Nice job, Rhys!

[prewarsports]

Scott & Scott, I appreciate the compliments and glad all made it to you guys safely.

We do offer "Iconic" shipping!

Rhys

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Scott & Scott, I appreciate the compliments and glad all made it to you guys safely.

We do offer "Iconic" shipping!

Rhys

Ha! You are selling yourself short with "iconic" in this case. That word has now been watered down to average. How about "extraordinary" or "kicks major ass"? Looking forward to quick shipping too. I just paid for my 700th hr Ruth and my $41 dollar win from previous auction(Sorry). Not at all iconic of me. Sent that over too. Can't wait to add these "Babies" to my collection. They are very "Ruthian".

[thecatspajamas]

Speaking of extraordinary photos, how about that first Ruth photo in the current auction? That's a KMA Ruth image if I've ever seen one! It takes a little something extra to make the Bambino appeal to the artsy fartsy crowd, but I think the contrasting sky behind him on that one may have done the trick!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Speaking of extraordinary photos, how about that first Ruth photo in the current auction? That's a KMA Ruth image if I've ever seen one! It takes a little something extra to make the Bambino appeal to the artsy fartsy crowd, but I think the contrasting sky behind him on that one may have done the trick!

Ha! To each their own for sure. I am sure it will make someone really happy. Pretty sure it doesn't even crack the top 10 Ruth Braves images let alone the best Ruth on the planet however....oooofta You're right on one thing though.. artsy fartsy and Ruth do not go together like peas and carrots.

RMY is pumping out a lot of photos..lots of neat stuff to look at monthly which is nice.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Speaking of extraordinary photos, how about that first Ruth photo in the current auction? That's a KMA Ruth image if I've ever seen one! It takes a little something extra to make the Bambino appeal to the artsy fartsy crowd, but I think the contrasting sky behind him on that one may have done the trick!

I have never considered myself to be artsy fartsy. My knowledge of photographic composition only trails my knowledge of what constitutes a quality Babe Ruth image. However, I absolutely love that photo of Ruth! I wish I could afford to add it to my own mediocre photo collection. It reminds me of the Hank Greenberg image that Graig Kriendler was searching for a nice copy of earlier.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=greenberg

[Runscott]

Mike, the Ruth photo is interesting, but there is a world of difference between that one, and the one of Greenberg that you linked to.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Mike, the Ruth photo is interesting, but there is a world of difference between that one, and the one of Greenberg that you linked to.

Facial features and the lack there of?

[71buc]

As Ben said, "To each their own for sure". I really love that Ruth image. I think the Greenberg is special as well. You can certainly call me crazy, nonetheless, I prefer the Ruth. However, I am also an aficionado of the black velvet Aztec warrior paintings I see on the walls of some of the finer Mexican restaurants

[Runscott]

The background with the clouds is cool, but yeah - nothing very interesting about the Babe himself, and there seems to be a stain directly over his face.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 71buc

As Ben said, "To each their own for sure". I really love that Ruth image. I think the Greenberg is special as well. You can certainly call me crazy, nonetheless, I prefer the Ruth. However, I am also an aficionado of the black velvet Aztec warrior paintings I see on the walls of some of the finer Mexican restaurants

fair enough. I would take the Ruth too. Not because of the image quality though.. just cuz it's Ruth

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Facial features and the lack there of?

Considering Ruth's mug that may not be such a bad thing. Just kidding...I understand what you are saying completely. I just really find the image aesthetically pleasing. I'm sure there are a number of Ruth collectors that are pleased to know you aren't interested in this one.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Considering Ruth's mug that may not be such a bad thing. Just kidding...I understand what you are saying completely. I just really find the image aesthetically pleasing. I'm sure there are a number of Ruth collectors that are pleased to know you aren't interested in this one.

If you like it you should give her a run. For sure.. to each their own man. You never know, you might just win it.

[GKreindler]

That Ruth is pretty darn gorgeous. I know Corbis has the uncropped image on their site, and every time I pass it on my searches, I want to paint it.

But I still dream about that Greenberg negative. Yes, I said it.

Graig

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

That Ruth is pretty darn gorgeous. I know Corbis has the uncropped image on their site, and every time I pass it on my searches, I want to paint it.

But I still dream about that Greenberg negative. Yes, I said it.

Graig

That image on Cornis is nice. The face on the original negative is crystal clear. Appears to be either damaged or dicked with sometime in the process on the said photo. Illy eyes go directly to it rather than the good parts of photo. If it was like the one on Corbis I would prob give it a mini run. the main problem I have is the description. It could potentially be very verv very misleading to newbies in the photo world. It is just simply not THE or one of the best Ruth photos on the planet. Not even remotely close. I am just tired of the auction houses making statements like this. I guess it has always been this way but has become just so extreme.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

That image on Cornis is nice. The face on the original negative is crystal clear. Appears to be either damaged or dicked with sometime in the process on the said photo. Illy eyes go directly to it rather than the good parts of photo. If it was like the one on Corbis I would prob give it a mini run. the main problem I have is the description. It could potentially be very verv very misleading to newbies in the photo world. It is just simply not THE or one of the best Ruth photos on the planet. Not even remotely close. I am just tired of the auction houses making statements like this. I guess it has always been this way but has become just so extreme.

UGH! This is the mistake people often make, they think the longer they have done it their opinion matters more. I may be new to buying photos, but I am not new to seeing them. You don't need to tell me if it is a good image or not, and the description given by RMY doesn't come across as definitive (non-like your statement), it comes across as opinionated which is fine by me.

The write up:

Of the thousands of times Babe Ruth was photographed during his career, this is our All-Time Favorite! Standing on the edge of the dugout and choosing his weapon, the photographer has chosen an artistic angle below to project Ruth's Stature in the game against an almost surreal background of clouds and bleachers! While the background is intentionally blurred, the figure of Ruth is crystal clear. The use of tones and shading are the work on an unidentified master of his craft capturing Ruth before his FIRST GAME with the Boston Braves. Condition is beautiful and this is truly one of the best (if not THE best) Ruth image on the planet!

Since they say at the beginning that is their all time favorite I take the last statement as an extension of their opinion based on what they find aesthetically pleasing. I, too, find the image to be nice. I do not like portrait images, I like baseball images. This one I find a lot more appealing then any portrait photo of Ruth, and honestly there are tons of images of his swing so it is nice to see this image (and the sliding ones that recently came up) come up for sale.

[thecatspajamas]

I always was that kid in the outfield staring at the clouds, so I guess that much hasn't changed. Now if Ruth would just get his big melon out of the way, I could REALLY enjoy this photo

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

UGH! This is the mistake people often make, they think the longer they have done it their opinion matters more. I may be new to buying photos, but I am not new to seeing them. You don't need to tell me if it is a good image or not, and the description given by RMY doesn't come across as definitive (non-like your statement), it comes across as opinionated which is fine by me.

The write up:


Since they say at the beginning that is their all time favorite I take the last statement as an extension of their opinion based on what they find aesthetically pleasing. I, too, find the image to be nice. I do not like portrait images, I like baseball images. This one I find a lot more appealing then any portrait photo of Ruth, and honestly there are tons of images of his swing so it is nice to see this image (and the sliding ones that recently came up) come up for sale.

UHG... I will address this in more detail tomorrow as I am traveling. I have no doubt you are one to learn the hard way. Nothing wrong with that.. I am too. The last statement is not good. Also, nobody on the planet(other than a seller/owner) would make the the statements in that description. It is not about doing this for a long time. It is about common sense. Period and definitively bn2z. It is misleading at the very very best. Also, I am not telling you anything. I do not even know who you are in fact. My point is simply let the photos speak for themselves; without crazy outlandish claims. Ironically, I am saying what you are saying. The difference here is..i am not trying to sell a photo. My definitive statement is simply that this is not one of the best or THE best Ruth photos on the planet. I think most people would agree if they were being honest whether they have collected a long time or not at all. Do you think this is THE or one of the best Ruth photos on the planet/that exists?

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

UHG... I will address this in more detail tomorrow as I am traveling. I have no doubt you are one to learn the hard way. Nothing wrong with that.. I am too. The last statement is not good. Also, nobody on the planet(other than a seller/owner) would make the the statements in that description. It is not about doing this for a long time. It is about common sense. Period and definitively bn2z. It is misleading at the very very best.

Ben, I look forward to hearing you discuss this further. Discussions like this are interesting. The passion you regularly display for this segment of the hobby was one of the early factors that drew me to photo collecting. I had become bored with looking at cards and diatribes about grading companies and was looking for something new.

My friends and family have never understood the baseball collecting virus that has afflicted me all my life. I have numbed many of them with baseball cards. They always ask the same thing, "What's it worth?". When I show them an original potentially one of a kind photo of Willie Mays or Jackie Robinson they never ask that question. Such photos have a magical ability to capture your imagination and take you on a ride back in time. They also seem to elicit an emotional response from my friends that love baseball and indifference from my wife.

I have always enjoyed photography and already had an appreciation for art beat into me by a mother who drug me to every major art museum in Europe. She loved Michelangelo. Much to her dismay I was drawn to Goya and Bosch at an early age. She was convinced that I needed a psychiatrist. I know we aren't talking about high art here but the passion and opinions of aesthetic beauty are the same. Although my photo collection will never send any of my kids to college, I know what I like when I see it. Unfortunately I cannot afford much of what I like. I remain enamored by some photographs' ability to make me pause in appreciation. I like that there are so many beautiful and unique original images available to collectors of every budget. This Ruth may not be your Michelangelo but is my Goya. I am also painfully aware that I am forced by family obligations to be a fan and not a collector of such quality images. Nonetheless I doubt I have room on my Discover card to cover this Ruth or an old Goya painting.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

UGH! This is the mistake people often make, they think the longer they have done it their opinion matters more. I may be new to buying photos, but I am not new to seeing them. You don't need to tell me if it is a good image or not, and the description given by RMY doesn't come across as definitive (non-like your statement), it comes across as opinionated which is fine by me.

Andy, I think this is an unfair statement. I am certain Ben doesn't feel his opinion matters more than yours or anyone else's - he asks me for mine all the time, and we disagree a lot. But I do think that because he has put a lot of years into this hobby, that he does feel a responsibility to share his thoughts with those who are newer to it. In this case, it isn't about the aesthetic value of the piece - it's about the value of the piece as a collectible. Ben is not trying to sell anything, so comparing his opinion to Rhys' is apples and oranges.

I have always thought that the overblown descriptions of items in ALL auctions is ridiculous and unnecessary, but everyone does it. Perhaps Rhys enjoys writing these descriptions and doesn't see any harm in it. I wrote some photo descriptions for an auction house once, and it was kind of creative and fun.

Bottom line is that if you can't make your own judgements based on the item alone, and your knowledge of what pieces are worth as collectibles (based on your experience and research), then you should keep your money in your pocket.

[bn2cardz]

I had a huge comment, but deleted it all as I really don't want to come across as thick headed argumentative person.

I purely was wanting to give my opinion that the image is a lot more aesthetically beautiful than Ben believes it to be (again only opinion) and that I strongly disagree with his analysis of the auction description of the photo.

As far as Ben's question on if this was the best Ruth photo. No I don't, but it is up there in my opinion. There are certainly others that I have seen that I think invoke more awe inspiring emotion (There is one swinging that always gets me to stop, along with the back '3' image and a Boston Pitching), but this one's composition helps it stand out among the barrage of Ruth portrait and swinging photos available. Sometimes different is enough to make an image stand out, and that is what this one does for Ruth.

[Runscott]

Andy, I don't think you are being thick-headed and argumentative, but I don't think you get Ben's point. I'm saying that because you keep focusing on his comments about aesthetics, and aesthetics are always simply opinion whereas collectible value is not.

Forgive me if this example is lame, but it's the best I can do on three cups of coffee: Let's say two new collectors got into a bidding war and one of them wins an aesthetically-pleasing photo for $2,000. Later, this collector has to sell his photos, and at auction gets $300 - the value that more experienced collectors felt it was worth all along, and the reason why they dropped out of the bidding at $300. What if he originally bid on the item because of a respected AH's description of its collectible merits, and the descriptions were misleading?

The above is starting to happen, but it's not happening to Ben. I think he's simply trying to help it not happen to you either.

[prewarsports]

I (like most people who currently collect Photos) started with Baseball Cards in the 1980's and just got bored! I get the same thrill on a daily basis from vintage photography as I used to going to a card show 20 years ago and finding weird type cards I had never seen before. With the Internet, those days are gone. With few exceptions I have seen just about every Baseball Card ever made and it simply has lost its appeal to me and something like T206 miscuts and rare backs are flat out boring as all hell.

What makes Photo collecting fun is its closeness to art (whether you like it or not) and for each collector to have his own likes and dislikes. Some people like the portrait photos and the "definite" shots, while others like the weird and seldom seen stuff. There is no right or wrong answer and that is the beauty of it.

I've probably handled as many Babe Ruth photos as anyone in the World (or at least close to it) and for me, I LOVE that Braves photo and personally would put it at the top of my list for beauty and aesthetics. It is in the "top 50" Ruth photos of all time using an objective poll with value as a factor? Probably not which is what Ben's point is, and that's perfectly fine.

To each his own, and that is what is GREAT about this area of collecting.

(BTW, Writing 6000 item descriptions a year gets really cumbersome and the only thing that makes it somewhat interesting is trying to find accentuating details about each photograph to describe them. In isolation a large portion of these photos we sell IS "iconic" or "tremendous" or "important", the problem from the perspective of the bidder is that they ONLY SEE the "best of the best" whereas I dig through a Box of 2000 photos for hours and hours to find 2-3 that are Auction Quality. From my perspective these are the top 1% the hobby has to offer and I describe them as such. From the buyers perspective it is "just another Ruth" or "Just another Mantle". having said that, if anyone truly has an issue with my descriptions, please e mail me and I will change the wording around. My intention is never to try and sound "used car salesman" but Facts are boring and can be looked up, people trust my experience and most importantly my opinion and I try and give them that.)

Rhys Yeakley

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Andy, I don't think you are being thick-headed and argumentative, but I don't think you get Ben's point. I'm saying that because you keep focusing on his comments about aesthetics, and aesthetics are always simply opinion whereas collectible value is not.

Forgive me if this example is lame, but it's the best I can do on three cups of coffee: Let's say two new collectors got into a bidding war and one of them wins an aesthetically-pleasing photo for $2,000. Later, this collector has to sell his photos, and at auction gets $300 - the value that more experienced collectors felt it was worth all along, and the reason why they dropped out of the bidding at $300. What if he originally bid on the item because of a respected AH's description of its collectible merits, and the descriptions were misleading?

The above is starting to happen, but it's not happening to Ben. I think he's simply trying to help it not happen to you either.

All the conversation was about was the aesthetics. If he was changing the topic from aesthetics to collectible value that was not really illustrated. In the end he stated "this is not one of the best or THE best Ruth photos on the planet." He did not say that it wasn't worth very much and give an estimate.
To me collectible value is only based off aesthetics (the entire reason my baseball card type collection doesn't have an e91 or a lot of strip cards). Other's put collectible value at rarity, some even put it in resale value. Everyone has to decide for themselves what makes something of value when it comes to collecting.

Every person who pays money to collect items has to know what the value of an item is to that individual person. It should NEVER matter what everyone else thinks the item should be worth. If it is authentic and isn't a scam then it just doesn't matter. I understand it is Ben's thinking also that other's opinions shouldn't trump the facts which is why he says the auction house shouldn't give their opinion, but that's just it, it is only an opinion. I really don't think it matters if the auction seller says it is their all-time favorite. In all honesty they just now made it IMPOSSIBLE to say that about another Ruth photo so if they say it about the next one also then we can say that they have no accountability, but that isn't the case here. I believe when I see personal comments put into the auctions it just shows the passion of the seller.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

All the conversation was about was the aesthetics.

Okay, I give up.

[thecatspajamas]

Andy, have you ever had to sell anything you've collected to recoup your money?

[sforaker]

As a new photo collector, I appreciate Ben's comments and they help to provide good context. Personally, I find this portion of the auction item description misleading. Rhys seems like a good guy and I hope that he will take this observation to heart in preparing future auction item descriptions.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Okay, I give up.

I ended up hitting that point where I came off as thick-headed didn't I.

You did just take a snip it because the very next statement I admit that if that wasn't Ben's perspective than it just didn't come off that way. The original conversation about this photo was talking about the eye appeal prior to Ben giving his opinion. Unless the term "artsy fartsy" is a term used for collectible value.


Lance,
Of course I have sold items from my collection to pay for other things, but when I purchased it I didn't think about the day I was going to sell it (except for the times it was bought for the specific reason to flip, in those cases I buy off research not personal feelings towards the piece).


Edited to add: I am really not wanting to come off as too argumentative if everyone wants to believe Rhys is wrong for giving his opinion, then that is your opinion. I don't have a problem with an auctioneer giving an opinion even if it does come off as fluff. I read the description as an after thought of looking at the item.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You did just take a snip it because ...

No, I really did give up. I don't want to get to the point where other forum members are telling me that I am repeating myself.

[GKreindler]

I do believe that 'artsy fartsy' is a technical term.

Graig

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

I do believe that 'artsy fartsy' is a technical term.

Graig

Artsy Fartsy

I can't believe the first part of that term was ever applied to Babe, but I'll bet he let out some beer-and-hotdog-infused blasts that would have earned him the second title. It's a good thing the nickname "Babe" stuck early on. Can you imagine collectors clamoring over items featuring "Fartsy Ruth?"

[Runscott]

I sometimes refer to mine as "Ruthian Blasts"

[GKreindler]

Hahahaha! That comment just made my afternoon, Scott.

[prewarsports]

Our Monthly Auction with over 300 quality images (and the Ruth photo that was discussed in this thread) ends tonight. Still plenty of time to register until extended bidding and it only takes a minute or two.

www.RMYAuctions.com

[Lordstan]

Any other winners last night?

I was very happy to come away with this one