The Future of Type I Photos

[GregMitch34]

I don't know if this has come up before, but here goes.

We all know that a new, major buying trend in recent years has been in vintage Type I photos. I resisted (though have large collection of M101-2, as I am a photog myself) until the past week when I won a Ruth and a Mays.

But here is what I am wondering. Of course, rarity/scarcity has been a big deal for a long time. But the top players always draw much value even when dozens, hundreds, even thousands of a particular card or issue exist.

Yet, in many cases, Type I photos can be one of a kind or at least very few of a kind, with little chance that more will surface. PSA authenticates and presents them nicely in jumbo holders and the images are usually great--and in large size, and god bless them, usually without "centering" issues. Sometimes they were taken by the most famous baseball photogs.

Anyway: As much as many of these have surged in value, shouldn't they actually go much higher in the future--due to the scarcity thing? Or even comparing similar images and size: Just for example, why should a Ruth Butterfinger or Ruth Quaker Oats, of which there are at least dozens, be worth more than a nice, similar, but nothing special Type I Ruth which might be one or three of a kind? Or pick your own examples of photo vs. card. Why should a Gehrig Goudey, almost too numerous to count, be worth more than a Type I Gehrig with a unique or nearly unique large image? Well, you get the idea.

[anchorednw]

I agree that certain Type 1 photos are just breathtaking and with a scarcity as you mentioned (one or few of a kind), only have room to run. Make it a coveted player, playing days, maybe even a little provenance or something unique about the photo and well you get this...

[Swadewade51]

There are hundreds to probably thousands of photos out there of the big name guys of each era like WaJo, Ruth, Mays, Jackie, etc. The ones that will truly surge in value are going to have to have story, come from a historic event, be a card image, and/or just breathtaking imagery.

The reason they aren't now is because of demand. He supply of Ruth imagery seems never ending as well.

[GregMitch34]

Yes, thousands of images of these guys--but vast number are not duplicated, unlike cards with same images, sometimes thousands each. And yes, demand not so high right now but my question is why and why won't that change in era where rarity seems to count so much. And yes, plenty of so-so images but then again most card images are so-so and look like each other....

[Snapolit1]

What really kicked card collecting into the stratosphere was the registry. Collecting became a dick measuring contest of sorts for many people. A race … a game … one more thing to win. Collecting photos doesn’t have that aspect because, as we know these photos are rare, there is no population report.

To me, photos over cards every day of the week. Look at Hunts Christy Mathewson auction. Stunning stuff.

[BuzzD]

Try as I may, I have never learned lesson of rarity vs scarcity. I seem to specialize in rare Yankee photos that do not have a lot of demand. Here is a possibly unique Bain photo of Alex Burr who played 1 game in 1914 and then went to war, dying in France in a flying accident. Also a Walter Bernhardt Conlon photo from Culver archive, who played 1 game in 1918 coming directly from Penn with no minor league experience, went to war and never returned to baseball. Someday my ship will come in...LOL

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

Yes, thousands of images of these guys--but vast number are not duplicated, unlike cards with same images, sometimes thousands each. And yes, demand not so high right now but my question is why and why won't that change in era where rarity seems to count so much. And yes, plenty of so-so images but then again most card images are so-so and look like each other....

I started collecting Type 1 snapshot photos about 10+ years ago.
At the time very..very..few collectors. Hardly any photos at auction houses.

...now....you are starting to see a strong steady increase of photo lots being added and even some auctions are only Type 1 photos.

It will increase in the future. It's happening now, especially the past few years.

However, photos are not mainstreamed yet vs cards. They are not formatted to a set. Due to them being so unique and different, there's no real price guide. It's the wild wild west with pricing to some degree.

So why the increase? One reason I think, collectors are being out paced with tradition cards cost and fatigue of seeing the same cards over and over again (add in there fraud issues too).....Where as photos offer something truly uniquely special on all levels (as Brian D. stated above) and collectors are starting to connect with that.

Would you rather see a newly discovered photo of Ted Williams or the same Ted Williams cards? For me, I still love cards, but I pick the photos.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

But here is what I am wondering. Of course, rarity/scarcity has been a big deal for a long time. But the top players always draw much value even when dozens, hundreds, even thousands of a particular card or issue exist. Yet, in many cases, Type I photos can be one of a kind or at least very few of a kind, with little chance that more will surface. PSA authenticates and presents them nicely in jumbo holders and the images are usually great--and in large size, and god bless them, usually without "centering" issues. Sometimes they were taken by the most famous baseball photogs. Anyway: As much as many of these have surged in value, shouldn't they actually go much higher in the future--due to the scarcity thing? Or even comparing similar images and size: Just for example, why should a Ruth Butterfinger or Ruth Quaker Oats, of which there are at least dozens, be worth more than a nice, similar, but nothing special Type I Ruth which might be one or three of a kind? Or pick your own examples of photo vs. card. Why should a Gehrig Goudey, almost too numerous to count, be worth more than a Type I Gehrig with a unique or nearly unique large image? Well, you get the idea.

Cards will always be the proverbial 800 pound gorilla of the hobby, with autographs second, then memorabilia including photos. It's exactly the uniformity of cards and autographs that lends itself to pop reports, price guides, etc., and places them alongside the big boys of collecting, stamps and coins. Photos are too individual to lend themselves to that kind of cataloguing, but, like everything else in the hobby, photos--and especially great ones--have been on a tear in the last few years, so it's not like they're falling between the cracks. I suspect that collecting top photos now, like other premium examples of memorabilia, will prove to be a smart investment down the road, perhaps even more so than cards or autographs. I don't know why that wouldn't be the case. I was floored today when I got the Heritage mailer with their WaJo uni on the cover with an auction estimate of 3M+. I was in Boston in 2006 when Sothebys/SCP ran that same uni in a very prestigious live auction, and if memory serves correctly, it went for somewhere around 150K. What happened to make it now worth more than 20 times that much? I don't know, although I really can't see it doing anything like 3M today. Just my opinion, though, and what the heck do I know.

[GregMitch34]

Good points, but what makes photos different from other memorabilia is that they are closer to "cards"--similar shape, often similar images or type of images (though not art/illustrations), but larger in size. A little easier to compare to cards than a ball or shirt of cap or bat.

[LEHR]

I love collecting Type 1 photos. Early photography is so much more interesting to me than most cards. As with card collecting, I tend to focus more on the obscure or second/third tier players as opposed to the elite HOF'ers, as I feel like these guys typically have more of a story to tell/discover.

[BioCRN]

One thing that seemingly hasn't happened yet is insiders making their way into news storage facilities and looting them like rare books/maps/etc and libraries.

It's hard to know how many are out there waiting to be "leaked" from their storage or newspapers/media figuring out those old photos are a hot revenue stream.

[jacksons]

Photos have always been more about the story to me than anything else. As a collectible, it marries so many elements together, each of which is compelling: subject, event, photographer, location, etc. This makes photos unique. I worry that they’re being treated as commodities in the collecting marketplace currently, being flipped by dealers to capitalize on their popularity, driven mainly by “Type”. Seasoned collectors that appreciate the story will always hold photos in higher regard though. Many of them are museum pieces, one of a handful known to exist. I hope they continue to be treated that way.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

One thing that seemingly hasn't happened yet is insiders making their way into news storage facilities and looting them like rare books/maps/etc and libraries. It's hard to know how many are out there waiting to be "leaked" from their storage or newspapers/media figuring out those old photos are a hot revenue stream.

I'm sure that's been going on for years. About 15 years ago, a notorious hobby figure named John Rogers set about buying all of the old newspaper photo archives he could get his hands on, and he got a lot by offering the owners significant money for something they had come to perceive as worth little and in fact costing them in storage space. Rogers was buying and selling thousands of photos a years for several years until he got busted for fraud in not paying his obligations and other nefarious activities. I don't know what happened to the photos he had when his operation went down.

[Swadewade51]

The "type" class is overrated much like most of what PSA does. You can get the swing of what's a vintage print on your own. There's gold in blank backs.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Velox snap of The Beast with the Cubs

[Bicem]

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

[jacksons]

Mine as well, and yours is the best-conditioned copy of this I’ve ever seen. Congrats!!

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by jacksons

Mine as well, and yours is the best-conditioned copy of this I’ve ever seen. Congrats!!

Wow. Incredible!

[jacksons]

Great back story if you haven’t read…

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...-game-in-1910/

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

Incredible

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

Incredible Jeff!!

[BeanTown]

Awesome All Star photo Jeff, and here’s my All Star photo thanks to your recommendation to buy it years ago which is my favorite.