1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese
 

Here is the latest addition to my 53 Bowman Color set.

Mikehttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9043cbb6f5.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...4fc2096b8c.jpg

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

one of my favorites
 

This is easily one of my all time favorite cards. I am surprised at how stagnant it has been price wise. It seems to sell for close to the same numbers it sold for 25 years ago. Most cards like this sell for considerably more than they did back then in high grades. This card is essentially unchanged.

Nice card Mike. This is one of my favorite action shots in the Topps run. Why they didn't crop it a little different to highlight the action - is a mystery to me.

Z

Since Bowman was bought by Topps I guess it is sort of in their run :)

Definitely a classic card, and the image on your copy is sharp, Mike, with no print dot. Congrats!

One of the nicest card sets, even after 60+ years.

53 Reese
 

Beautiful card, my favorite pose from my favorite bowman set. Bowman and Topps really put out fantastic sets that year

Reese
 

I believe I read somewhere that this card was actually the only card in the set that was a black & white photo and then colorized. Anyone else know if that is true?

I have also heard on good authority that this is indeed true.

I still don't get the geometry.

Colorize this
 

Bowman invested quite a lot into the Kodachrome color photo process for its 1953 set, so it would have been strange for them to dig up a black and white image and colorize it, although I do believe that the photo itself dates back to the 1940's. The company did colorize many B & W images for its other sets, though, so perhaps they did as well for the Reese card. But, was it the same photo editor who did the poor cropping that also did the colorization? Maybe the unusual red undershirt indicates the photo was a Kodachrome, after all. Pee Wee was adept at levitation.:)

That would explain the red sleeves...

I think it's more likely that a photo editor would color dark sleeves as the normal Dodger blue, no? But, I guess he might have been sniffing photo chemicals for too long on the job. I have seen other players wearing red undershirts in spring training games, so the red sleeves on Pee Wee seem to argue more for an actual color photo in my view. Might it be that it is the unusual red sleeves, in addition to the great action pose, that made the card as memorable as it now is?

This is my all-time favorite card. If I'm in a position to acquire a high-end one it may become the only card in my "collection." I do also love the 1952 Berk Ross. They loved showing Pee Wee in action.

http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/377/69471.jpeg

Hmmm, the red sleeves is an interesting argument against a colorized B&W photo.

When I mentioned "good authority" in my post above, I was referring to Griffins here on Net54. He mentions it in this old thread on CU, and I also found it referenced in a very thorough article on the '53 Bowman Color set by Dean Hanley which appeared on SCD in 2010.

I wonder where this idea of the card being a colorized B&W photo originated. Maybe Griffins will see the thread and chime in.

BTW, one thing I learned from Dean's article about the set (I never noticed this feature on the backs):

Usually the skin tones are the most revealing telltale signs of B/W to color manipulation, but the scan is too small to really study them. One odd thing to note, too, is the way there is seemingly an oval-esque framing to the picture, where the outlying areas (all 4 corners) are unnaturally darkened. These days, you can do that in photoshop in a split second. Not sure if that provides evidence supporting or refuting colorization, but there was clearly work done to the original image.

I agree about the cropping but I think that's part of what stands out about the card. That you would never see an action shot with so much background like that today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes he was.

Great images!!!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Good point about the strange darkening on the edges of the image. I had always assumed that it was the result of some sort of photo development goof, but perhaps you are right. I agree that the color image seems too well developed and detailed for the usual kind of colorization process employed at that time. Bob Lemke had some interesting comments about the '53 Bowman set and his attempts to produce a replicard from a monochrome photo using colorization:
http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2014/04...on-custom.html