1953 Bowman Color Pee Wee Reese
 

This has been discussed before, but I found this photo and feel the need to post. Cannot find the old thread just now. This is the photo that became the card. Vero Beach "Dodgertown" is the location. The man on the ground is George "Shotgun" Shuba, number 8.

I was wanting to ask this question, so I'm glad you posted this.

Why is this card so expensive? This card in a SGC/PSA 1 is like $300. Why is it so popular? It's not a RC, it's not his final card. It's just another card with a cool action shot. Is that way? Just a cool action shot? I'm new to the vintage, and I'd like to get this card at some point as I want to collect as many Brooklyn Dodgers cards as I can. So I'm really curious.

As Greg (G1911) mentioned in the other thread. It is a staged photo for those that don't know?
1951 Brooklyn Dodgers Spring Training
Pee Wee Reese (1918 - 1999), Shortstop for the Brooklyn Dodgers jumps in the air to complete a double play on #8 George Shuba (1924 - 2014) at second base as Jackie Robinson (1919 - 1972) looks on during Major League Baseball Spring Training on 1st March 1951 at Dodgertown in Vero Beach, Florida, United States. (Photo by Curt Gunther/Keystone View Company/Archive Photos/Getty Images)
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail...oto/1635765833

Maybe wrong, but I think because if not the first, one of the first action shots on a card, even if it was staged. When I put my 53 Bowman set together, I got the big cards out of the way at first. This was one of those big cards, as in big price. And even with high price, try finding one with clear image. Almost all are very out of focus, so much so the photo looks like a painting.

I wonder how long poor Shubes had to be a good sport, just laying there prone on the ground as they kept snapping away pictures in hopes of eventually getting the 'right' one...

Attachment 621511

Beauty in the eye of the beholder?
 

Ok, but we are actually discussing three different photos here. The first is the OP's wire-photo, which is not the same shot as was used on the card, as can be seen by looking closely at the positions of two players. Arms and legs are obviously in slightly different positions on the two photos. The third photo that Irv references by his link is another wire-photo from Dodger spring training, but is quite apparently not the same as either of the first two pics. This third pic was not even shot in the same ballyard, I think. The outfield fence here looks to be a ramshackle, part wire and part wooden slat job, with no ads appearing. Thus, the caption identifying the time, place and players has no real bearing on the first two photos. Since photo numbers one and two do not reveal the sliding player's uniform number, it is still not certain that he is in fact George Shuba - probably, but not for sure.

NM

It's expensive because it has a great image.

Similar to the 1952 Topps Zernial that sells for slightly more than the average common.

You got it and it's a simple answer.

Also, both those cards were the first I bought from either set as a collector. :D Just great cards to show anyone who knows nothing about the hobby.

Lots working in its favor. Even before his HOF election Pee Wee was a beloved player. Plus you add in the Brooklyn Dodgers, the possibility of the sliding player being Scooter, the fantastic image and its essentially being the first ever action card in a major set, let alone one of the most popular vintage sets there is and it all adds up to quite a premium.

Definitely subtle differences between photos #1 and #2. Did hi-speed photography exist when the photos were made? If so, then the two photos could have come from the same exact shot, same leap, split-seconds apart. I don't know. Photo #3 looks nothing like #1 and #2. As you say, the fence is totally wrong. Could be the angle, if you look at second base, but I just don't think so. I admit, I looked at #3 to assume the man on the ground is Shuba, assuming all 3 came from the same shoot.

What I was trying to point out in my post, where I put the obviously different photos next to each other, was that the most likely scenario was Shuba (or whomever it is) was just lying there on the ground and Pee Wee Reese kept jumping up as the photog snapped away, perhaps never actually throwing the ball.

Due to the lack of body twisting and strain in the card photo, it doesn't seem likely the separate pictures came from the continuation of the same 'play.' It doesn't rule it out, of course, but I think Reese probably just kept landing and jumping, and that's why 'Shuba's' prone body has slight differences in his leg positions, etc. He probably got tired from having to lay in the dirt like a dog! At least he was saved from being covered in a cloud of dust, since he never had to actually slide into the base. :D:eek::D

Clickity snap...
 

Sure did exist in 1953. The photographer would set up his high speed camera on an tripod and snap shots at a rapid clip. Thus, the two shots of Reese over second base were snapped while he was hanging in the air. If you look at the base runner's feet, they actually move about a half foot or so over the bag in the time between the two shots. As for photo #3, I think it was shot in a different ballfield and on a different day, maybe even a different year. Not only is the outfield fence completely different (you can tell it is second base shot from the same angle by the shape of the infield grass cut), but if you look closely at the undershirts Reese and the runner are wearing, they are very different in the photos. In the card photo, temperatures appear to be cooler, as both players are wearing heavier undershirts with elastic cuffs, while in photo #3, both players are wearing light-weight undershirts with shorter sleeves. Not the same shoot at all.

I understand the appeal but the card is a bit too precious and overvalued for me. I prefer the '53 Topps Reese and think this is actually his best card with an honorable mention going to the '41 Playball RC.

Tell me about it! I was comping some the other day. An "A" or a 1 goes for $300. No thank you. Not for that low of a grade.

Any idea why they posed Shuba on the ground facing in the wrong direction? Did he supposedly roll over after his slide?

Good question
 

Shuba suffered a knee injury early in his career and had surgery on it following the 1952 season. It seems possible that, in posing for the shot, he was anxious about Reese possibly landing on his knee. So, he flipped over while sliding.

I always thought the baserunner was Frenchy Bordagary and the photo was taken in the 1940s not 50s? When did this change and where did I miss this information?

Thanks
Danny

Googled it.
 

Daytona Fla spring training 1946.

..http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...NREESE_NEW.JPG


..

Frenchy
 

Yeah, it appears now that Bordagary is correct, since Reese is quoted as identifying him as the base runner. Which begs the question, why was Pee Wee asked to pose for such a similar shot five years later with Shuba? Maybe because the 1946 photo was used on some magazine covers before the Bowman guys got ahold of it and another photographer wanted to replicate it?

https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2023/...ee-reese-card/

Here's a SABR write up I didn't see before I stuck my foot in my mouth!

The SABR article, like many, is informative from many standpoints. I at first thought the card was overpriced. Mine is at best a 1-1.5 and a touch out of focus but center :) But I now wish I spent $20 more for the one that was in focus but more OC L to R as the image is art like, and one of the iconic cards in an iconic set.

There is also still a mystique about the Brooklyn Dodgers in New York, where I live. Admittedly, its from the older card dealers, who actually saw them and had their hearts broken when they moved to LA. Maybe this will slowly fade away and the premium will diminish over time. But Reese is a HoF and he's connected to that famous 2nd baseman who would have been a great addition to the 53 Bowman set. But that's also been in another post.

Hobby archaeology
 

Right, I agree. It has always seemed to me that the simple reason the Reese card is so esteemed is that it was a striking oddball item in one of the most revered sets of the early '50's. Many of the high profile people in the hobby when it became more publicized in the '70's and '80's were kids in the early '50's who fondly recalled those sets and priced cards from them accordingly. Once card values became accepted generally, regardless of how much sense or nonsense it makes, card dealers resist change.:rolleyes: