1951 Mickey Mantle TYPE 1 Photo Used to Create His 1952 TOPPS Card is now at 20K...

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

A major daily newspaper I worked at in the mid 1990s had a great library of first-generation and wire photos from the turn of the century. My duties as a copy and layout editor for the Sports department had me pulling file photos on almost a daily basis. You would be shocked at the manilla folders 2, 3 and 4 inches thick dedicated to photos of Cobb, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, etc. Routinely there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition. I spent a lot of time browsing those folders.

This was at a newspaper in the South that never had an association with Major League Baseball. I can only imagine what rests in the bowels of newspapers in big-league cities.

To a lesser degree, this is probably true for many collectibles (excluding one-of-a-kind items, game used, contracts, awards, etc.) - there is always the possibility of a future "find". In my opinion, what makes photos an important exception is the current Roger's acquisition program which is unlikely to end soon and specifically targets prime sources with huge numbers of vintage photos.

The '51 Mantle image for the '52 Topps card was extensively used in newspaper articles across the country from 1951-53 and to a lesser degree from '53-'55. I have several of these and the captions (or image) are approximately 50-50 between wire photos and first generation. In addition, I have had the good fortune to acquire large photo collections from former sports photographers and sports journalists (and in one case from someone who happened upon a garbage bin outside a major publishing house and simply removed hundreds of photos that had been tossed out). I can confirm what Rob D. posted that even in this modest sampling "there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition".

My best guess is that the number of Type 1 photos of the '52 Topps image that exist is probably around 10-15. This number could increase from magazine archives (which typically used multiple prints in the editorial and reference processes). How many of these sources will be a target of acquisition is obviously unknown deceasing the likelihood that any of these will ever surface. On the other hand, as someone has already mentioned, the publicity generated from this sale would likely increase the probability of other examples coming to the market.

As some on this forum know, my primary focus is on early (1949-1951) Type 1 Mantle photos. This is one of the only vintage news service photos of Mickey that I do not have (been looking for almost 25 years now) and, if I had unlimited resources it would be mine.

Finally, I would like to raise again a question that I asked in an earlier post on this thread - Does anyone know what the highest price to date (private or public) ever paid for a baseball photo is?

Thanks,

Craig

[GKreindler]

Hey Craig,

I'm definitely no authority on this, but I think the highest figure a single unsigned vintage photograph has reached may have been the almost-$90,000 for the ginormous Addie Joss benefit game panoramic from 1911. Here's a link to Heritage's 2005 auction:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=19707#Photo

I had forgotten about this one, even when the Joe Jackson Conlon photo hit its final number of $32,588 (and I think that was without the juice?).

They're definitely been a lot of other contenders for high figures, including that Horner Wagner photo from the Sotheby's auction. I feel like a LOT of the other five figure prices reached for photos have been for Conlons, be they Mastro's Ted Williams portrait or some of the shots of Gehrig's and Ruth's eye closeups. And, they're also those wonderful early 1920s Paul Thompson shots of Ruth, also from Mastro's collection, which I think ranged from 10k to 18k.

Granted, Jimmy, Ben, Lance and the others could probably chime in with better researched info...

Graig

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Hey Craig,

I'm definitely no authority on this, but I think the highest figure a single unsigned vintage photograph has reached may have been the almost-$90,000 for the ginormous Addie Joss benefit game panoramic from 1911. Here's a link to Heritage's 2005 auction:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=19707#Photo

I had forgotten about this one, even when the Joe Jackson Conlon photo hit its final number of $32,588 (and I think that was without the juice?).

They're definitely been a lot of other contenders for high figures, including that Horner Wagner photo from the Sotheby's auction. I feel like a LOT of the other five figure prices reached for photos have been for Conlons, be they Mastro's Ted Williams portrait or some of the shots of Gehrig's and Ruth's eye closeups. And, they're also those wonderful early 1920s Paul Thompson shots of Ruth, also from Mastro's collection, which I think ranged from 10k to 18k.

Granted, Jimmy, Ben, Lance and the others could probably chime in with better researched info...

Graig

Thanks very much Graig. I had forgotten about the Addie Joss photo. I believe that the Wagner went for $25,000 and an oversized Ruth and Gehrig from Christie's auction of the Baseball Mag. archive was around $30,000. Gonna be interesting to see where the Mantle finally winds up!!!

Cheers,

Craig

PS Attached is what you asked about. Again, its an image from an auction that I won but does provide a much closer view of Mickey (muscle striations in the Popeye left forearm, '51 patch, ball big as life and Feller's facial expression ( really means business).


Hope you like!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Thanks very much Graig. I had forgotten about the Addie Joss photo. I believe that the Wagner went for $25,000 and an oversized Ruth and Gehrig from Christie's auction of the Baseball Mag. archive was around $30,000. Gonna be interesting to see where the Mantle finally winds up!!!

Cheers,

Craig

PS Attached is what you asked about. Again, its an image from an auction that I won but does provide a much closer view of Mickey (muscle striations in the Popeye left forearm, '51 patch, ball big as life and Feller's facial expression ( really means business).


Hope you like!

Craig, I think there was a Mickey Mantle child photo(very small phoo booth with a cowboy hat on) that went in the 5 figs if memory serves me right(in lelands several years back. I cannot find it on the site though. Do you remember that one by chance?

Ben

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Craig, I think there was a Mickey Mantle child photo(very small phoo booth with a cowboy hat on) that went in the 5 figs if memory serves me right(in lelands several years back. I cannot find it on the site though. Do you remember that one by chance?

Ben

Ben, you are absolutely correct. It was a very cute photo of Mickey and I was tempted to bid but the extremely small size eventually kept me from doing so.

Over the years, Leland's has had a number of original early photos of Mickey most of which I believe originated from the families of childhood friends in Commerce.

[Forever Young]

With all due respect, I doubt there will ever be 10-15(TRUE TYPE 1s) that ever hit the market. With all of the archives already opened, this is the only one documented. Heck..I have never seen 10-15 or more of one TYPE 1 Rookie image Documented PERIOD(pre-1960s). That doesn't mean that it can't happen of course. I just think that a true rookie image taken in 1951 developed, FROM THE ORIG NEG(not wired) within those 2 years is way rarer then say a 1956 triple crown shot when he was a bigger story/well known. Hence the 2 year type 1 debate and one reason why that requirement was set. If this was printed in 1956 because of his records, popularity etc.. it would be less valuable in my eyes..not period. That is just me.
This could be compared to a 1952 topps mantle vs 1956 topps mantle card..both have images from 1951..(main image in 1952, and the diving in stands in 1956 topps).The difference is when the cards were created/published.

I do agree with two main points that were made below.

A) This sale should bring out a percentage of any out there.
B) The additional photos that surface will not affect the price as the supply is simply too few and the demand is high.

Jimmy-I was wondering how long it was going to take you to respond Mr. Toughy pants.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Jimmy-I was wondering how long it was going to take you to respond Mr. Toughy pants.

Mr. Toughy Pants? His rant was well worth the wait. I'm afraid the poor guy spilt his Cheerios all over himself in the heat of the moment.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

With all due respect, I doubt there will ever be 10-15(TRUE TYPE 1s) that ever hit the market. With all of the archives already opened, this is the only one documented. Heck..I have never seen 10-15 or more of one TYPE 1 Rookie image Documented PERIOD(pre-1960s). That doesn't mean that it can't happen of course. I just think that a true rookie image taken in 1951 developed, FROM THE ORIG NEG(not wired) within those 2 years is way rarer then say a 1956 triple crown shot when he was a bigger story/well known. Hence the 2 year type 1 debate and one reason why that requirement was set. If this was printed in 1956 because of his records, popularity etc.. it would be less valuable in my eyes..not period. That is just me.
This could be compared to a 1952 topps mantle vs 1956 topps mantle card..both have images from 1951..(main image in 1952, and the diving in stands in 1956 topps).The difference is when the cards were created/published.





I do agree with two main points that were made below.

A) This sale should bring out a percentage of any out there.
B) The additional photos that surface will not affect the price as the supply is simply too few and the demand is high.

Jimmy-I was wondering how long it was going to take you to respond Mr. Toughy pants.

Ben,

I agree with you. As I posted in an earlier response to Hank, I believe we may only see 1 or 2 (hopefully) Type 1 photos of the '52 Topps image ever surface and become available in future auctions.

Mickey actually was a very big story in 1951 - the most publicized rookie in a number of years (mostly due to the NY press, Casey's ranting and his pre-season accomplishments). Over the years I have accumulated a significant number of Mantle Type 1 Rookie photos. Based on what I have, what I have seen in auctions over the past 20 years or so and my discussions with other Mantle collectors I can say with certainty that I know of at least 7 or 8 examples of a number of different and documented Type 1 Rookie Mantle photos. Interestingly, this is actually much more then I have or have seen from any other year - although this part may be somewhat biased since my primary focus has been on these early years ( I do, however, have a multitude of Type 1 photos that span his entire career).

[Hankphenom]

...and I'm sure John Rogers and others who have been looking into this have a pretty good idea of what might be out there, but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster, meaning that the relatively few to have survived will produce a comparatively small enough number of truly top quality Type I prints to keep prices high in the future, especially given the increasing demand for them among collectors.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

...and I'm sure John Rogers and others who have been looking into this have a pretty good idea of what might be out there, but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster, meaning that the relatively few to have survived will produce a comparatively small enough number of truly top quality Type I prints to keep prices high in the future, especially given the increasing demand for them among collectors.

I agree. I already thought about the value if other type 1's like this one being auctioned came out. Unless a large stack of them came out I don't think it's price gets hurt. I can sort of relate it to cards. I paid a ton (relatively speaking) for the T207 Red Cross Weaver I have. When I nabbed it there were only approximately 5 T207 Red Crosses known. A couple of years ago there were approximately 5-6 more that came out. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that those new ones to the hobby didn't affect the value of the card I have...and there is a chance they even increased it's value with more awareness.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

... but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster ...

I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.

The only first-hand knowledge I have is of my hometown, Washington, DC, papers. At one time, there were four major dailies, and none of their photo archives have survived. Even the survivor, The Washington Post, has only a thin file of vintage photos remaining. The rest were purged long ago.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.

That really varies from one paper to the next, and nowadays more than ever, the finances of the paper can have a big effect. In many cases, I would wager that the only reason the paper still maintains an archive of decades-old photos is that they are kept in-house in a building that is already paid for in a space (basement) that is not in-demand for their day-to-day operation since they certainly aren't growing in terms space needed for their staff. It's simply easier to leave them where they are, and on the off chance that they need a photo of an old-time ballplayer to run, they don't have to pay the AP or Getty Images or whoever for it. If the paper is going under, consigning the old photo files to the dumpster (or whatever staff wants to cart them off) is still a very real possibility.

That is one of the biggest reasons that I think John Rogers has been so successful in prying these photo archives away from the various publications. Not only does he negotiate the purchase of the physical photos, but also returns to the paper a digital archive of the images so that they will still have those available for further publication. Most of the papers he has worked with see it as a win-win-win: they free up the space of the physical archives, they get the images in a more readily-usable form, and most importantly, they get an infusion of cash.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

...and I'm sure John Rogers and others who have been looking into this have a pretty good idea of what might be out there, but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster, meaning that the relatively few to have survived will produce a comparatively small enough number of truly top quality Type I prints to keep prices high in the future, especially given the increasing demand for them among collectors.

Hank,

This is a very good point and I agree. One caveat (as indicated by the apparent source of this photo) is the enormous number of smaller, regional papers that have probably not gone the digitization route and may well still have archives of hard copies - as well as the possibility of collections of local sports writers that may have been passed down to family members but are just lying around somewhere.

Having considered yours and other excellent related points recently posted, I have changed my opinion slightly and now believe that we may only ever see
one or two Type 1's of this image in comparable condition in a future public auction.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

One caveat (as indicated by the apparent source of this photo) is the enormous number of smaller, regional papers that have probably not gone the digitization route and may well still have archives of hard copies - as well as the possibility of collections of local sports writers that may have been passed down to family members but are just lying around somewhere.

More food for thought: The paper I currently work at, which is one of the largest in the state, has used a digital library for photo retrieval for at least the past 15 years. Some of the hard copies of photos, which haven't been digitally archived, are still on site. The remainder are housed in an off-site facility. As far as I know, management has no plans destroy this massive photo archive.

I know that two papers I previously worked at -- one a midsize and the other a large paper -- are doing the same thing.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

More food for thought: The paper I currently work at, which is one of the largest in the state, has used a digital library for photo retrieval for at least the past 15 years. Some of the hard copies of photos, which haven't been digitally archived, are still on site. The remainder are housed in an off-site facility. As far as I know, management has no plans destroy this massive photo archive.

I know that two papers I previously worked at -- one a midsize and the other a large paper -- are doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The only first-hand knowledge I have is of my hometown, Washington, DC, papers. At one time, there were four major dailies, and none of their photo archives have survived. Even the survivor, The Washington Post, has only a thin file of vintage photos remaining. The rest were purged long ago.

Wow!!

You guys have me changing my position every few seconds!!! Let me put it this way, independent of how many of these '52 Topps Type 1 photos are out there and how many really do surface and are offered for sale - I JUST WANT TO GET ONE THAT I CAN AFFORD!!!!!!

I really do hope we see some more in the next few years but as Leon has posted, with this sale it is unlikely they will go for much less. Oh well, I can always dream.