August Pick Ups

[Scott Garner]

Vandy, Babe and Paul Derringer Type 1 (?) photo prior to Vandy's 2nd consecutive no hitter.

Slug on back gives the detail...

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Vandy, Babe and Paul Derringer Type 1 photo prior to Vandy's 2nd consecutive no hitter.

Slug on back gives the detail...

Nice addition having the slug to give the details on the back! It's weird how much the lighting can change the look from one photo to another. I went back and looked at the one you picked up from me a while back, and did a double-take b/c it looked like Vandy was wearing a different jacket. I think it just looks a lot darker in your newer shot because of the shadows/lighting. Must have really set the mood, as I can also see Vandy has slipped his hand over on ol' Babe's knee by the time your newer photo was taken...

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Nice addition having the slug to give the details on the back! It's weird how much the lighting can change the look from one photo to another. I went back and looked at the one you picked up from me a while back, and did a double-take b/c it looked like Vandy was wearing a different jacket. I think it just looks a lot darker in your newer shot because of the shadows/lighting. Must have really set the mood, as I can also see Vandy has slipped his hand over on ol' Babe's knee by the time your newer photo was taken...

Lance,
He absolutely IS wearing a different jacket. To facilitate the photo shoot, for whatever reason, they had him change his jacket. Weird!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Lance,
He absolutely IS wearing a different jacket. To facilitate the photo shoot, for whatever reason, they had him change his jacket. Weird!

Are you sure? Because the buttons on the right side of the jacket are the same shape and in the exact same place and position in both. I also noticed that the bill and logo on their caps look almost black in your newer photo, but are clearly a different color in the one you got from me before.

Weird either way, but now I'm curious to see what you think after comparing them side-by-side.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Are you sure? Because the buttons on the right side of the jacket are the same shape and in the exact same place and position in both. I also noticed that the bill and logo on their caps look almost black in your newer photo, but are clearly a different color in the one you got from me before.

Weird either way, but now I'm curious to see what you think after comparing them side-by-side.

Lance,
Hmm...You know what, I believe that you are correct now that I've looked closely.
I have looked at these two images before and wondered about them and why...

I wonder what in the photographic process would make them look like this? Maybe you are right about the lighting.
Do you think the shot that includes Paul Derringer has been altered so as to create this look? I guess I might know more once I have it in hand...

[Scott Garner]

BTW Lance, Vandy idolized Babe when he was growing up. Additionally, he was a huge fan of Carl Hubbell (also a pretty fair lefty hurler I've heard... ) and the NY Giants.
Vandy grew up in Midland Park, NJ, just up the road from the NY Giants...

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Lance,
You know what, I believe that you are correct now that I've looked closely.
I have looked at these two images before and wondered about them and why...

I wonder what in the photographic process would make them look like this. Do you think the shot that includes Paul Derringer has been altered so as to create this look? I guess I might know more once I have it in hand...

Only thing I can think of is the lighting source each photographer relied on for his shot. Perhaps that's the difference between having a good flash, and relying on ambient light? There are probably other more-technical aspects that I'm not familiar with that can affect it as well, but in the one you got from me, it looks like a flashbomb just went off, providing enough light that you can see it reflected from the paint on the back of the dugout.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Only thing I can think of is the lighting source each photographer relied on for his shot. Perhaps that's the difference between having a good flash, and relying on ambient light? There are probably other more-technical aspects that I'm not familiar with that can affect it as well, but in the one you got from me, it looks like a flashbomb just went off, providing enough light that you can see it reflected from the paint on the back of the dugout.

I said it before, but the lighting in the photo that you sold me was like cracking The Davinci Code as far as revealing where the dugout was in my Kreindler painting...

I'm glad that your Vandy/Babe photo answered the riddle that Graig and I puzzled over...

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I said it before, but the lighting in the photo that you sold to me was like The Davinci Code in cracking the mystery of where my dugout was in my Kreindler painting...

I'm glad that your Vandy/Babe photo answered the riddle that Graig and I puzzled over...

I'm just glad that it found a good new home. That it helped to solve the mystery made it all the more satisfying. All deals should have such a happy ending

[Lordstan]

Great pics Scott.
I wonder if the top one could be a copy of an original print. There seems to be so much less detail in the top one as compared to the bottom one of Vandy and Ruth. Notice the bat the Derringer is holding in the top photo. Ruth is holding it in the second. The printing of the band is sharper in the second picture, but the overall color is pretty much the same. Could the first be from a copy negative where the photographer did something to the print to make the jackets and hats not be able to show the logos?

[Butch7999]

FWIW:
A) the wrinkles/folds in Vandermeer's jacket look (to us) almost identical in both photos.
B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.
C) Cincinnati wore blue caps with red peaks in 1938.

The Reds caps both Vandy and the Babe are wearing in the pic with Derringer look grey with black peaks in our browser.
The caps look black with light-colored peaks in the two-shot,
and Vandy's jacket in that pic looks to have a black front and light sleeves, which would mean the front is blue and the sleeves red.
Which would account for the all-black look of the jacket in the three-shot.

Our best guess: one photographer was using better-quality film.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

FWIW:
A) the wrinkles/folds in Vandermeer's jacket look (to us) almost identical in both photos.
B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.
C) Cincinnati wore blue caps with red peaks in 1938.

The Reds caps both Vandy and the Babe are wearing in the pic with Derringer look grey with black peaks in our browser.
The caps look black with light-colored peaks in the two-shot,
and Vandy's jacket in that pic looks to have a black front and light sleeves, which would mean the front is blue and the sleeves red.
Which would account for the all-black look of the jacket in the three-shot.

Our best guess: one photographer was using better-quality film.

Butch,
Excellent detective work! I appreciate your input.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Great pics Scott.
I wonder if the top one could be a copy of an original print. There seems to be so much less detail in the top one as compared to the bottom one of Vandy and Ruth. Notice the bat the Derringer is holding in the top photo. Ruth is holding it in the second. The printing of the band is sharper in the second picture, but the overall color is pretty much the same. Could the first be from a copy negative where the photographer did something to the print to make the jackets and hats not be able to show the logos?

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

[repsher]

It could also be that the photo was poorly scanned. Those photos are great. He certainly looks like a boy meeting his idol.

[Runscott]

Couldn't it be that someone touched up the negative in the darker one? Even Babe Ruth's cap appears to have been 'darkened' substantially - doesn't look like something that either lighting or different file would cause.

Maybe David (Cycleback) has some ideas?

[repsher]

Here are some photos I picked up on the cheap($10) from the John Rogers SN collection.

This Rube Marquard is what I believe is a type II Conlon. Taken ~1910 but developed later.

rubemarquard(conlon)0012.jpg

Hank Gowdy's head. This is also a Conlon photo but since it's pasted to a board I'm unsure which type it is.

hankgoudy(conlon).jpg

Gabby Harnett from 1930.

gabbyharnett(1930)2.jpg

Joe DiMaggio from 1940

dimaggio1940001.jpg

[repsher]

Here are some negatives I recently picked up:

Schoolboy Rowe's grip on the ball in spring 1935:

schoolboyrowe(1935(1200)002.jpg


A young Frank Robinson.

FrankRobinson(1200)002.jpg

And a young Lou Pinella

loupinella(1963)(1200)33.jpg

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by repsher

Here are some negatives I recently picked up:

Schoolboy Rowe's grip on the ball in spring 1935:

Attachment 111498

Ryan,
Love the Rowe.
Would make a great Kreindler painting!
Mark

[Runscott]

Picked up four bats the other day: 1930's 34" "Atlanta Cracker", 36" hand-lathed flat-end ash, 34" Louisville Slugger 125 (can't read signature, if any), Louisville Slugger 'Edd Roush'.

Here's the label of the 'Atlanta Cracker', 34", no damage other than worn label and some marks. Also, the hand-turned one.

[Runscott]

Here's 'before' pics of the Roush '40 ER'. It was very dry and splotchy with separated dead wood and some reddish-brown stains that wouldn't come off with thinner or stripper - all the dark areas in the photos were even more pronounced. It looked like someone had tried to remove the varnish, or it had been left in water - you can see a wiggly line on the bottom pic that looks like what worms do to driftwood. Some will shoot me for this, but the bat was 'all there', but unsightly, so I made a project out of it, and I expect it to be quite a looker when done.

1. injected wood glue beneath separated pieces and clamped - you can see where the 'Edd J Roush' signature is almost totally lifted from the wood - it is now flush and looks very nice.
2. removed as much of the dark splotches as possible, using thinner, then stripper
3. removed a bit more using 220 sandpaper
4. stained with 'red oak', guessing that was close to the original color
5. it's now drying. I'll add a light coat of bullseye French polish tomorrow and post pics

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

No doubt it's a great image of a boy and his hero.

[Lordstan]

My newest Lou pic. Direct from Curt(Thanks)

1934 in action with Oscar Melillo.

[Scott Garner]

Lou pulled his foot. Safe!!
Nice action photo, Mark.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I haven't posted much lately but here is my most recent pick-up from earlier this month. Frank Robinson in center of photo from his professional baseball debut season of 1953 with Class A Ogden.............

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Lou pulled his foot. Safe!!
Nice action photo, Mark.

Same ump worked Galaragga's game.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Picked up four bats the other day: 1930's 34" "Atlanta Cracker", 36" hand-lathed flat-end ash, 34" Louisville Slugger 125 (can't read signature, if any), Louisville Slugger 'Edd Roush'.

Here's the label of the 'Atlanta Cracker', 34", no damage other than worn label and some marks. Also, the hand-turned one.

Beautiful job. It seems to me that you saved a fine bat. Any chance that you happened to measure how much weight was added via restoration?

[Runscott]

Thanks Mark, all the pics I posted are 'before' pics - all the dark spots were even darker and more dramatic, but are now less pronounced since I worked on it.

I wiped a darker stain over it this afternoon, and hoping it's ready for a small amount of French polish tomorrow - it already looks much better than before. As far as weight added, it would be negligible - just some glue, stain and Watco Danish oil that probably account for the weight lost due to the wood drying up.

[RCMcKenzie]

Found this photo to go with the T36 De Palma card...

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I haven't posted much lately but here is my most recent pick-up from earlier this month. Frank Robinson in center of photo from his professional baseball debut season of 1953 with Class A Ogden.............

Nice pick-up Phil!! I saw that in the Hakes "Own it now" section...was gonna let the dust settle w/ our large trx before pulling the trigger! Glad to see it went to a good home!!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.

Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference"

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference"



Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

Lance,
Thanks for the insight!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative.

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)

The Type system is basically just shorthand for when and how a photograph was printed, and shouldn't speak to the quality of the image at all. I think there are definitely "good" Type 1 photos and there are "lousy" Type 1 photos. There is still a judgement call to be made with regard to aesthetics. I would agree that anyone who is allowing a Type designation and plastic holder to make up the difference between lousy and good is going to have a hard time building an aesthetically pleasing collection, even if all of their photos technically fall into the Type 1 category.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)

It doesn't get confusing at all. In fact, it provides clarity. I would much rather have a TYPE 1 IMAGE OF A BABE RUTH ROOKIE PRINTED IN 1915-16 -rather than the same image printed off the original negative in 1919 when he started breaking records for example. It is a no brainer. If peeps don't want to use the system fine. But make no mistake, it makes a difference to the high end collectors and the value. A BIG DIFFERENCE and rightfully so. I could care less about the slabs(most wouldn’t either so I don't know why this always comes up) but I do care about what the piece is and it is MOST MINUTELY DEFINED WITH THE TYPE SYSTEM. YES… those were CAPS

[Runscott]

Ben, you and Lance are the same sort of collector as myself, and I understand your points (always did), just as I know you understand mine.

[Lordstan]

My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

Actually Mark,

My example of Ruth was to show that the 2 year window is very necessary at times. A mantle 1951 printed in 1951 would be much more valuable to me than the same image printed in 1956(when he won the triple crown and was the biggest star of the time) and reproduced many times over.

Both examples show why they settled for 2 year window(approx) and justifiably.

The execution of the type system by PSA is pretty good I would say. Of course there will be misses at times like there are in autographs, cards ect(no matter if is a tpa or a so called single expert we are talking about). But I think they are very accurate. Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well

You get yourself started. The only people that would disagree with that statement are so called photo experts who are "competitors" of Henry, dealers who do not like the fact that psa is now cking their work(they have customers who want the service) and you! Just keeping is real... haha!!

PS: I love you Scott. And yes, you have been very good.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

You get yourself started. The only people that would disagree with that statement are so called photo experts who are competitors of Henry, dealers who do not like the fact that psa is now cking their work and they have customers who want the service and you! Just keeping is real... haha!!

PS: I love you Scott. And yes, you have been very good.

Well, you know me - I would send every photo I own (even family snapshots) in to PSA for slabbing and typing, if I could be guaranteed that Henry Yee would personally handle each one.

(Now I have to go take a good shower, as I'm dripping with vile sarcasm)

[smokelessjoe]

I've seen these banks with other teams, but I've never seen a Pelicans one? It's a glass baseball bank w/ Pelicans logo... 1940s. ???? I've looked around and cannot find one that has sold?

Anybody have one or know of them? High / low value?

Shawn

[smokelessjoe]

Pelicans

[smokelessjoe]

New Orleans

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Well, you know me - I would send every photo I own (even family snapshots) in to PSA for slabbing and typing, if I could be guaranteed that Henry Yee would personally handle each one.

(Now I have to go take a good shower, as I'm dripping with vile sarcasm)

I know you and yes.. please go take a shower pigpen.

[bobfreedman]

Thanks Ben!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Thanks Ben!

Ouch.. it hurts so bad...the price I have to pay to build my Ruth collection. This is a museum quality piece. It will look perfect with your Cy Young. You are welcome and congrats Bob.

[BigJJ]

Awesome Walter Johnson.

Ben Bob et al Great new leather frames - and reasonable -

http://www.restorationhardware.com/c...yId=cat2400008

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Thanks Ben!

Beautiful! Congrats Bob.

[Runscott]

Here's the refinished bat. After the stain dried, I gave it a thin layer of French polish, then used a synthetic wool to rub the shine off of it. The pics look shinier than the actual bat. For reference, two of the pics show comparisons to a 1911-14 bat and a later bat, both completely natural.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Here's the refinished bat. After the stain dried, I gave it a thin layer of French polish, then used a synthetic wool to rub the shine off of it. The pics look shinier than the actual bat. For reference, two of the pics show comparisons to a 1911-14 bat and a later bat, both completely natural.

These look GREAT Scotty! You and your projects are impressive. I have no patience for things like this so I really appreciate seeing them.