How do you feel about the Topps Vault negatives?

[northsidebaseball]

I really like the idea of owning these, being a vintage one of a kind item. Especially the ones that were made into actual topps cards. The negatives that were not used for a card do not appeal to me nearly as much but unpublished star player negatives still fetch high dollars at auction so clearly other people like them. Just curious about what other people here on the board think of them. Here is the only one that I own, but I would like to get more of these(if I can afford them)

[Big Red Machine]

The one thing about these that I will say is that it's not actually a negative but a positive. If it was a negative the image would be in reverse. I am curious to know if Topps still have the original negatives in their archives.

[Exhibitman]

The Topps negatives are transparencies. Transparencies were a big commercial medium in the pre-digital age until 35 mm slides more or less replaced them. Their main utility was the ability to drop them onto a light table and instantly see the true image, which is very useful for an art director or editor trying to select an image. Needless to say, it is an archaic technology. They are collected in other fields. Here is a Steve McQueen 4 x 5 transparency from a 1970s Academy Awards show:



As collectibles, I am not sure of the long-term viability. The ones I saw at the Topps booth at the National were showing some signs of degeneration. Film isn't that stable a medium. I have a few transparencies from the 1960s that are showing signs of degeneration. It also requires some careful storage in conditions that are not the same as cards for optimal lifespan.

[Mark70Z]

I'm with you; I really like the transparencies that were used to make the vintage Topps cards. I do enjoy looking at some of the other great, never before seen, shots of some of my favorite players of the day as well, but don't appeal quite as much as the one's used for cards. I do notice the negatives used for cards go for a bit more typically, but some of the others go for high dollar as well. I guess it depends on the shot and the player pictured.

By the way I "LOVE" the Billy Williams transparency you have purchased. If you don't mind me asking what was the final price of that baby?!? That has to be a great addition to your collection.

I personally think these will at least hold their value due to thier one of a kind nature. Of course as time goes by some of the younger collectors/individuals will forget, since they've never seen them play, the older players.

[steve B]

I like them, and pretty much any other preproduction stuff as well.

But like Exhibitman said the film is a tricky medium.
Nearly all Kodak film from mid 50's -1982-3 will eventually discolor. Typically the image turns red/pink. Some goes quicker, some slower but it all turns.
The exception for these might be any done in Kodachrome, which is dye based and doesn't show much fading. Some of the early 80's stuff also fades, but very slowly. Ektachrome shows image density loss beginning at around 20 years.
Other films have the same issues but are a bit more colorfast. Fuji gets a bit purplish, but fairly slowly.

And it's not just negatives and transparencies. It's all kodacolor from 50's -80's including prints. And many other print papers. (And some stuff was done in B+W on color stock and also turns)

True B+W should last a very long time depending on care and how well the original developing was done.

Steve B

[northsidebaseball]

I have a followup question concerning taking care of these for Exhibitman or Steve. What would you say are the best conditions for storing these things? Currently my 1961 Billy Williams is stored in the sealed plastic case that the topps vault sealed it in with the case inside a zip lock bag. I know nothing about photo film/negatives or their care. I will say the williams negative I have displays no flaws or degeneration that I can see and it is 50 years old. Perhaps the color has aged but I just assumed being a negative/positive it always looked as it does now. I did once see pictures of 8x10s another guy made from a topps vault negative/positive from the 60's and they looked great!

Also mark thank you for the kind words, I paid $300. The price of these things are all over the place so I'm not sure if it was a bargain or if I overpaid. In either case I will be hanging on to it for a long while, as you guessed it is definitely one of my favorite items. Now if I can just locate and purchase the 1961 Ron Santo rc negative.....

Anybody that has any of these in their collections, feel free to post them here. I would love to see some more!

[steve B]

If it's one of your favorite items then you haven't overpaid.
One of the guys I learned from told me "you rarely pay too much, just too soon". And taking a long view of collectibles I think he's right. (Of course, for some cards you might be a couple lifetimes early)
Plus there's only one of each one.


Storage of photographic stuff can be really complicated. There are some issues that aren't well understood, but research is catching up.
Essentially cool and dry is best.

Personally I'd make a small mat from some acid free paper to keep the emulsion from contacting the holder.
That being said, I have lots of old negatives that are still in the crummy boxes they were in when I bought them and they're doing fine. I've seen film collections in a lot of different states of storage and condition. Ranging from cool and dry that became junk to stuff in an attic that was beautiful.

The basics are here
http://www.pixmonix.com/tutorials/tu...lm-storage.php

With more details here
http://www.loc.gov/film/storage.html

If you follow the research link at the top of that last one it will take you to some technical papers. That's where most people hit the wall as far as interest goes. I find it fascinating. And the cellulose acetate plastic that's used is somewhat similar to cardboard, both beginning as wood pulp, so some of the science will loosely apply to cards as well.

Steve B

[northsidebaseball]

Originally Posted by steve B

If it's one of your favorite items then you haven't overpaid.
One of the guys I learned from told me "you rarely pay too much, just too soon". And taking a long view of collectibles I think he's right. (Of course, for some cards you might be a couple lifetimes early)
Plus there's only one of each one.


Storage of photographic stuff can be really complicated. There are some issues that aren't well understood, but research is catching up.
Essentially cool and dry is best.

Personally I'd make a small mat from some acid free paper to keep the emulsion from contacting the holder.
That being said, I have lots of old negatives that are still in the crummy boxes they were in when I bought them and they're doing fine. I've seen film collections in a lot of different states of storage and condition. Ranging from cool and dry that became junk to stuff in an attic that was beautiful.

The basics are here
http://www.pixmonix.com/tutorials/tu...lm-storage.php

With more details here
http://www.loc.gov/film/storage.html

If you follow the research link at the top of that last one it will take you to some technical papers. That's where most people hit the wall as far as interest goes. I find it fascinating. And the cellulose acetate plastic that's used is somewhat similar to cardboard, both beginning as wood pulp, so some of the science will loosely apply to cards as well.

Steve B

Thanks alot for the quick education in taking care of these Steve, much appreciated and very interesting threads. I already have it in much safer storage conditions than before. The Williams I bought also came with the original envelope that it was apparently stored in all these years by Topps. It is just a standard long white envelope cut in half inscribed in pencil: Billy Williams 1961 2nd series #141. So it certainly does not appear that Topps took any extraordinary efforts to preserve these. Thanks again for help

[steve B]

Hold on to that envelope as well. I think it's pretty cool to have a link like that to how Topps handled stuff in the office.

The print shop I worked for kept the masks for the plates for a few years but merely laid them out on open shelves with sheets of paper in between.

It's sometimes tough to decide on storage. Metal cans aren't great for movie film, but when I've got a 1950's football TV show still in the original can and fiberboard mailing box with the TV station label it's hard to split them up.
My friend who collects films doesn't have that problem, he splits them up unless they're sports and I want them.

Steve B

Yes, I'm a bit nuts. Most of the mail away cards I have are still either in or stored with the original box or envelope. 100 years from now someone may make a nice find.

[Mark70Z]

Clint... I don't think you overpaid at all @ $300 for a FINAL B. Williams negative. Again, congrats on the pickup! I "assume" you're a Cubs fan; have you seen some of the awesome Ernie Banks negatives that have been coming up for sale? I'm really not a Cubs fan per se, but some of the negatives that have come up for sale in the past were very cool items. I find myself bidding on some player negatives that I don't even collect the individual, but the negative is so nice. Problem is I haven't come out on top on any of the one's that I have bid!

Appreciate the input from Steve B. and Exibitman concerning storage and protection issues.

You mentioned ultimately finding the Ron Santo RC negative; I'm unsure if that particular one has come up in the Topps Vault auctions or not, but I have noticed an individual on ebay that has quite a few Santo items for sale (tyweb1). It looks like he collects Santo as well and may have some feedback on the rookie negative. I see he has some of the Topps Vault items for sale although not the FINAL negatives. Thought it may be worth a try to contact this individual.

I'd love to see other pickups from the Topps Vault that forum members have picked up!!!

[Exhibitman]

FWIW, I've picked up some of the Topps reflection photos, which are positives on which the Topps artists inked highlights for cards. They too are showing signs of degeneration due to unstable dyes. Here is an example from the 1975-76 basketball issue:

Bob McAdoo:



Those Buffalo unis used to be nearly the same color as the highlights and the background has lost a lot of color.

Based on what I've seen I think my future vault purchases are going to be limited to cards, uncut materials and contracts. No more photographic materials.

[steve B]

Photographic stuff after roughly 1982-83 should be ok. Kodak made a change beginning in 1981 and was comitted to it by 1982.

On motion picture film it's labeled LPP, with a previous version being labeled SP. SP fades less than the older stocks, turning a bit brownish. LPP is pretty much ok. The earliest bits are showing some loss of density, but will likely be good for a long time. I'm not sure if those labelings carry over to still films or large format commercial films/papers.

Anything B+W or marked Kodachrome will be ok for a very long time, As will dye transfer prints - Technicolor for motion picture stuff probably unmarked for anything else but it's almost a "you'll know it when you see it" thing. Brilliant colors and no fading even at 70 years or more. (Technicolor labs also processed regular Kodak film, so the name on a can doesn't mean it's a dye transfer print)

Steve B

Steve B

[Mark70Z]

Is there anyone that has purchased negatives (transparancy) from Topps Vault having any issues with deneration? I know they use Photoshop to enhance the item when picture, but the ones I have seen look very nice.

[Exhibitman]

I doubt you'd see anything this fast; we're talking longer term than the year or so these items have been sold. The degeneration is relative to their original states. For example, I have a great Frank Sinatra transparency that dates to the early 1960s and it has changed color in the 20+ years I've owned it.