Showing off a custom cut signature booklet - Steinbrenner

[Woundedduck]

Had this done by a member on the FCB boards and thought some here might want to see it.




Was made from the following pieces:

[David Atkatz]

So a signed photo becomes a cut signature.

Great.

[GKreindler]

Woundedduck,

Do you have the final piece in hand? I'd love to see photos of the thing in real space.

Also, can you mention anything about its printing and/or construction?

Thanks!

Graig

[Woundedduck]

The photo was a Polaroid and a blurry, poor quality one at that. It wasn't the nicest presentation and I had no personal connection to it so having it cut up for this project was an easy decision.

I don't know all the details as far as production goes, but it's quite meticulously hand crafted. 200lbhockeyplayer was the creator over on FCB and his work is top notch. The only difference between this and something created by Topps is the logo. I'll try to get some in hand pictures when I can.

http://www.freedomcardboard.com/foru...77#post1715177

The above link is a thread where he shows his process a bit

[Mr. Zipper]

I'm not typically supportive of slicing and dicing, but this seems like a pretty worthy exception. Nice work and an improvement in my opinion.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Woundedduck

The only difference between this and something created by Topps is the logo.

Quite true.

(I don't recall very much written here in defense of cutting up autographed items in order to shove cuts into cards.)

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Woundedduck

The photo was a Polaroid...

In other words, a one-of-a-kind photo.

[bbcard1]

I think it looks great! Good choices IMO to make combine some uninteresting pieces into something top notch.

[packs]

This is an instance where the card looks better than the original item. I don't think you can really make the argument that a polaroid is a unique one of a kind relic here.

[thecatspajamas]

I think a Polaroid is, by its very nature, a unique one-of-a-kind relic. It may not be fine art, but the format is instantly recognizable and appreciated by many collectors.

I think what david is getting at is that perhaps a different cut could have been used without destroying a one-of-a-kind piece (whether you have emotional attachment to it or not). I actually thought the same thing when I saw it, that the finished piece looks nice, but could have been just a little nicer (in my opinion) if a cut from a 3x5 or other solid white medium had been used instead of something that has the break between solid white and color photograph background at an awkward angle in relation to the rest of the card.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very neat and attractive assemblage, and seeing the process is interesting to me as well. If you asked me "what one thing would you have done differently" though, that's it.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

This is an instance where the card looks better than the original item. I don't think you can really make the argument that a polaroid is a unique one of a kind relic here.

Of course it's a "unique one of a kind relic." There is absolutely no other identical photo, nor are there any copies of it. That's the nature of a polaroid.

[Exhibitman]

Beautiful! Turned a crappy polaroid into a work of art any Yankees fan would be proud to own.

[cubsfan-budman]

and its a one-of-a-kind relic now. even says so on the card.

i agree that the polaroid wasnt anything too special and the card is an improvement.

[David Atkatz]

The photo told a story. The "card" is a manufactured, meaningless, decoration.

[packs]

You mean like taking an original photo and turning it into a baseball card?

[Exhibitman]

The card tells a story of the man in the photo, with better images and quotes that really sum up his philosophy and his life's work. It may be sacreligious to some to ever change an atom of any collectible but as a fan and collector I far and away would prefer to own a work of art like this to a random snapshot of a middle-aged man in a hallway.

[David Atkatz]

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a photo which can be duped millions of times, and a polaroid, which is a unique, one-of-a kind, original.
(And, of course, turning a photo into a baseball card does not damage or destroy the original photo. Just ask our fellow collectors who pay three figures for those type I photos which were used on cards.)
And then there's the fact that the polaroid was signed when taken, preserving a moment in time when a fan met the Boss.

But, hey, it is a beautiful, meaningless decoration.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

...but as a fan and collector I far and away would prefer to own a work of art like this to a random snapshot of a middle-aged man in a hallway.

If he's just a "middle-aged man in a hallway," why would you want his autograph in the first place? And why would you want to create a cardboard shrine to encase that autograph?

[Cfern023]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The photo told a story. The "card" is a manufactured, meaningless, decoration.

Yeah, the Poloroid is telling me someone caught him off guard and harassed him for an autograph after.

The card is nice, but an index card would have been perfect. I like it.

I wonder if I can find two index cards signed by my favorite 2 Marlins.

If the photo was something special, such as him behind his desk, or even hugging the guy who took it- then I understand. But the image isn't special to begin with, and you can find millions of photos of The Boss.

Those photos from before 1950 are sometimes the only item you can get of a guy who never was asked for his signature, and of a time when memorabilia wasn't mass produced. This Polaroid is an example of that "Instant Collectible" world we live in. Those old photos of the Babe and Gehrig are the antithesis of that.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Cfern023

This Polaroid is an example of that "Instant Collectible" world we live in. Those old photos of the Babe and Gehrig are the antithesis of that.

Is that so?

Tell me... In what respect does the signed Polaroid snapshot of Steinbrenner--preserving a chance meeting with a fan--differ from this snapshot of Ruth?



Or this blurry snapshot of Gehrig and Ruth? (It's so blurry--if it were mine I'd cut off the signatures and have a card made.)

[Exhibitman]

Let's see: value, rarity, desirability.

David, you take a fanatic's position of absolutism, that there is no difference between a vintage Ruth signed snapshot and a modern polaroid signed by the Boss. If you cannot see the difference between the two then there is no point discussing this any further with you.

Some items--like the Steinbrenner photo--can be transformed into more enjoyable items for the fan who owns them with no great loss to the history of the sport, and that is what a hobby should be all about. If you can't see that then maybe you need to take a step or two back from collecting and follow the advice below.

[David Atkatz]

Rarity and value, huh?
At the time those two snapshots I showed were signed, they were no big deal--they had essentially no monetary value. And they were common--Ruth spent hours signing anything and everything presented to him. Does that mean they should have been cut up?
I'm sure many, many such photos, though, were destroyed--that's why they're (relatively) rare today.
I guarantee you this, though. There are far fewer signed photos of Steinbrenner than of Ruth. That's not to say that they ever will have the value of a Ruth-signed photo--they won't. But they still should not be destroyed.

And just so you know, I don't live in a studio apartment, I'm married to a real, live woman (and we talk all the time), and I don't give a damn about baseball cards. And disagreeing with you certainly does not mean that I need to "grow the hell up."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And disagreeing with you certainly does not mean that I need to "grow the hell up."

No it doesn't but you still do.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by Leon

No it doesn't but you still do.

This brought a smile to my face!!!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by whitehse

This brought a smile to my face!!!

I shouldn't have said that as I was acting the way I was making fun of. At times I think we are all just big kids.

[Cfern023]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Is that so?

Tell me... In what respect does the signed Polaroid snapshot of Steinbrenner--preserving a chance meeting with a fan--differ from this snapshot of Ruth?



Or this blurry snapshot of Gehrig and Ruth? (It's so blurry--if it were mine I'd cut off the signatures and have a card made.)

Lets see, in the time Ruth played I'm sure getting your picture taken was sometimes a big deal. These days, you get your picture taken every day and don't even know it.

The ruths are great pieces, in great settings in great era appropriate clothing. The Steinbrenner poloroid strikes me as instant TMZ.

Feel how you may, but you can't deny how much crap is produced since the 1960's, this polaroid included.

[Cfern023]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Rarity and value, huh?
At the time those two snapshots I showed were signed, they were no big deal--they had essentially no monetary value. And they were common--Ruth spent hours signing anything and everything presented to him. Does that mean they should have been cut up?
I'm sure many, many such photos, though, were destroyed--that's why they're (relatively) rare today.
I guarantee you this, though. There are far fewer signed photos of Steinbrenner than of Ruth. That's not to say that they ever will have the value of a Ruth-signed photo--they won't. But they still should not be destroyed.

And just so you know, I don't live in a studio apartment, I'm married to a real, live woman (and we talk all the time), and I don't give a damn about baseball cards. And disagreeing with you certainly does not mean that I need to "grow the hell up."

You do realize that grow the hell up part is his signature, right?

http://net54baseball.com/member.php?u=148

You strike me as the type of guy who will argue Mitt Romney is the best, until someone agrees with you and flip to say that Obama is.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Cfern023

Lets see, in the time Ruth played I'm sure getting your picture taken was sometimes a big deal.

You're only off by about a century. In the 1840s, getting your picture taken was a big deal. In the 1930s, Kodak was selling millions of cameras a year.

People collect snapshots because they are unique, and nothing at all like the mass-produced "collectibles" you keep comparing them to.

[Jlighter]

Holy crap your comparing Babe Ruth to the Boss, there not synonymous.

[David Atkatz]

No, they're not.

[packs]

With such a delicate worldview it must be hard to throw anything away. Each creation being so unique and a part of historical record.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

With such a delicate worldview it must be hard to throw anything away. Each creation being so unique and a part of historical record.

Nah. I'd throw that manufactured card away in a heartbeat.

[yanks12025]

I think the card looks nice, bit I agree with David to a point. I think it would have been better to use a index card instead of this photo. Yes it's just a polariod but it is unique and I'm sure there's not many out there.

[thecatspajamas]

It's an age-old argument as to whether the resulting piece is more or less desirable than the original components. To use an argument of aesthetics (the product looks better than the components) against an argument for the intrinsic value of truly unique items is an exercise in futility. If you place higher value on the aesthetics, you will be less concerned about the integrity of the original pieces. If you place a high value on keeping a piece of memorabilia in its original state, whether the finished product looks good or not, knowing what was destroyed to create it will taint your enjoyment of it.

The same conflicts crop up when discussing whether to have a vintage photograph signed by an aging former ballplayer, whether to use a vintage ball for a modern signing, whether/how to have an old stadium seat restored, what pieces to cut up and put in a card, and on and on and on.

Bottom line is, if you're presenting your manufactured piece to a group of collectors for comment, you have to expect that there are going to be people from both camps in the crowd and that not all of their comments will be praises. If you ask for opinions, it's poor sport to attack those who speak up when they state opinions differing from yours.

[ksfarmboy]

It's too bad someone ruined those one of a kind photos with Ruth and Gehrig autographs. Especially since they were signing everything and anything at the time.

[David Atkatz]

They weren't? Have you ever heard of Ruth refusing to sign anything? (contracts excepted, of course.)

[David Atkatz]

Ya know what? F#*k it. Go cut up whatever the hell you want, if it makes you happy.

(I'll go on protecting the stuff I own, though. It will all be passed on to the next generation, in the same shape I received it.)

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No, they're not.

You sure showed me.

[David Atkatz]

Any time, Jake.

You're welcome.

[steve B]

Just a minor point. Polaroids aren't necessarily unique. Polaroid made a device for copying them.

I'm sort of with David on this one, I generally don't like seeing anything cut up. On the other hand, without the background story to give the polaroid some context it becomes what everyone else calls it. A rather poor photo with a signature.

I know I wouldn't have cut it, but I can see why someone would.

And as others have said aesthetically a 3x5 would have ended up much nicer. And the polaroid probably could have easily been swapped for a 3x5.

Steve B

[mr2686]

Sorry, but I'm in 100 percent agreement with Dr. Atkatz on this one. That's one of the reasons I don't like to collect things like autograph books if I'm looking for one sig because I wouldn't want to cut it up for a matted project. Doesn't mean I wouldn't collect one, just wouldn't use it in other projects.

[Gary Dunaier]

The Polaroid may have been a big deal to the person who took it, especially if he's not someone who is in a position to run into someone like George Steinbrenner every day.

As a Mets season ticket holder, I went to many games in '12 (unfortunately, the Santana no-hitter was not one of them ). One of my passions is walking around Citi Field during games and taking pictures from all sorts of angles. I'm partial to this photo I took of Ike Davis about to tag home plate after hitting a walk-off home run to win the game for the Mets in their final meeting against Houston...


(Photo taken August 26, 2012. © Gary Dunaier. Link to upload on Flickr.com: here.)

As it happened, I caught Davis in midair as he leaped and did a celebratory twirl in front of his teammates as he tagged home plate. Now, there are "better" shots of Davis' twirl, from professional photographers with better equipment and better access, for instance:


(Photo source: here)

But I think my photo is pretty darn special because I took it. And just the same way, whoever originally took the Steinbrenner shot must have been pleased with his "get," at least at the time.

[drc]

The Polaroid had a crappy image. No work of art was destroyed.

[Jlighter]

Man, we're still talking about this?