NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

View Poll Results: Was this image used as a reference for the #61 1934 Goudey card by the artist.
YES 27 67.50%
NO 13 32.50%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:15 AM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default Baseball card art/photo:gehrig 34 goudey or not gehrig 34 goudey.that is the question

Good afternoon Gents,

I picked up this fantastic Gehrig photo this month. Do you think it was used as the reference for a 1934 Goudey card by the artist? Why or why not?

Ben
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 341.jpg (52.0 KB, 264 views)
File Type: jpg 342.jpg (10.7 KB, 260 views)
File Type: jpg 343.jpg (13.7 KB, 259 views)
File Type: jpg 344.jpg (5.9 KB, 258 views)
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-15-2012 at 11:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:23 AM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

yes, striations in the shirt match pretty well.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:37 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,200
Default

I am Not a photo guy but collected some photos with regard to them being made into cards. As I did it, and as is with this photo, I would want more of an exact match to say this is definitely the right photo for the card. However, I am not 100%, it's just a guess. Travis could be right....
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:51 AM
39special's Avatar
39special 39special is offline
$teve O.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berks County Pa.
Posts: 2,656
Default

Looks pretty close to me.
__________________
Looking for'47-'66 Exhibits and any Carl Furillo,Rocky Colavito
and Johnny Callison stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-15-2012, 12:29 PM
GKreindler's Avatar
GKreindler GKreindler is offline
Graig Kreindler
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,417
Default

I'd say you've got a match, Ben.

Sometimes, I know it can be hard to tell what's what when it comes to cards that have been illustrated. That's usually so because when these artists were hired (whether freelance or out of source), the art directors (or whomever was the acting art director) would most likely provide each artist with the photos they'd be using for reference, or access to someone who had them. And most certainly, they were also given certain parameters to follow in terms of size and dimension. Because of that, certain changes were made to these illustrations.

The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the '51 Bowman Mantle rookie card, as well as the photograph that was used to make it:





I think it's fair to say that the card was illustrated with the photo as reference. They do look very similar: the pose, the likeness, the uniform folds, positioning of the bat, etc. However they ARE some subtle differences that were made by the illustrator with the final product in mind - the final product being a baseball card that is only a fraction of the size of the photo, as well as the original painting.

If we look at the bat in both images, you'll see that the photo has the branding on it, and on the card, it's gone. There's no doubt in my mind that that was done either because the artist knew that having even an indication of the branding might compete with the nameplate on the card, but most likely, he/she knew that the image was going to be shrunk down so much, so that fine detail would end up being lost.

And then there's the issue with the palm trees and the telephone pole. In the card, they're placed in spots that are different from the photo. In this case, the artist probably just wanted to take some of those background elements and pop them into that small rectangle, mainly to give a sense of space with the whole thing. You'll notice that if the photo was cropped just like the card, all of that stuff is either not visible or in a different place:



So, with that in mind, I think you can take a lot of that same thinking and add it to the Gehrig photo and card. You have the jersey folds being incredibly similar, and even the way the pinstripes fall on them. The hands are the same, as is the positioning of the bat. And, the lighting on the jersey is also very similar in both the photo and card.

The face, although lit differently than the photo, is angled the same and though stylized, still exhibits the same characteristics of the real portrait. The hat that Gehrig wears on the card is a bit different than what he has on the photo, but I think that just goes back to the particular dimensions that the artist had to work with. If the hat was depicted as it was in the photo, it would be cropped across the logo, something that I'm sure wouldn't have made the Goudey people happy. The artist most likely made the adjustment and lowered the thing to fit into the whole frame - a bit of license had to be taken with the look of it.

Long story short, since an illustration is going to differ a little bit from the source, you can't say with 100% assurance that it's. But, if we all agree (not just from what we see on the boards, but even in the books that we've read - Yee's book comes to mind) that that Mantle photo was used to make the Bowman card, then the same should be said for this Gehrig photo. From an artist's point of view, Ben's Gehrig photo HAS to be the one the illustrator had in hand while he/she was painting the original artwork used for that Goudey card.

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Graig
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-15-2012, 12:41 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GKreindler View Post
I'd say you've got a match, Ben.

Sometimes, I know it can be hard to tell what's what when it comes to cards that have been illustrated. That's usually so because when these artists were hired (whether freelance or out of source), the art directors (or whomever was the acting art director) would most likely provide each artist with the photos they'd be using for reference, or access to someone who had them. And most certainly, they were also given certain parameters to follow in terms of size and dimension. Because of that, certain changes were made to these illustrations.

The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the '51 Bowman Mantle rookie card, as well as the photograph that was used to make it:





I think it's fair to say that the card was illustrated with the photo as reference. They do look very similar: the pose, the likeness, the uniform folds, positioning of the bat, etc. However they ARE some subtle differences that were made by the illustrator with the final product in mind - the final product being a baseball card that is only a fraction of the size of the photo, as well as the original painting.

If we look at the bat in both images, you'll see that the photo has the branding on it, and on the card, it's gone. There's no doubt in my mind that that was done either because the artist knew that having even an indication of the branding might compete with the nameplate on the card, but most likely, he/she knew that the image was going to be shrunk down so much, so that fine detail would end up being lost.

And then there's the issue with the palm trees and the telephone pole. In the card, they're placed in spots that are different from the photo. In this case, the artist probably just wanted to take some of those background elements and pop them into that small rectangle, mainly to give a sense of space with the whole thing. You'll notice that if the photo was cropped just like the card, all of that stuff is either not visible or in a different place:



So, with that in mind, I think you can take a lot of that same thinking and add it to the Gehrig photo and card. You have the jersey folds being incredibly similar, and even the way the pinstripes fall on them. The hands are the same, as is the positioning of the bat. And, the lighting on the jersey is also very similar in both the photo and card.

The face, although lit differently than the photo, is angled the same and though stylized, still exhibits the same characteristics of the real portrait. The hat that Gehrig wears on the card is a bit different than what he has on the photo, but I think that just goes back to the particular dimensions that the artist had to work with. If the hat was depicted as it was in the photo, it would be cropped across the logo, something that I'm sure wouldn't have made the Goudey people happy. The artist most likely made the adjustment and lowered the thing to fit into the whole frame - a bit of license had to be taken with the look of it.

Long story short, since an illustration is going to differ a little bit from the source, you can't say with 100% assurance that it's. But, if we all agree (not just from what we see on the boards, but even in the books that we've read - Yee's book comes to mind) that that Mantle photo was used to make the Bowman card, then the same should be said for this Gehrig photo. From an artist's point of view, Ben's Gehrig photo HAS to be the one the illustrator had in hand while he/she was painting the original artwork used for that Goudey card.

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Graig
Graig,

I was hoping you would give your opinion on this one. Thank you for your point of view on this as an artist.

Travis and steve.. I agree with you and purchased it because of this. Leon, I completely see what you are saying. I knew there would be some with your opinion. I created the poll to see the breakdown of both views.. Thanks! Ben
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-15-2012 at 02:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-15-2012, 06:18 PM
horzverti's Avatar
horzverti horzverti is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,032
Default

Another nice pick up Ben! I would say you have close enough of a match. The illustrator most likely used his/her artistic license for embellishment. Given the angle of bat, the position of the Horse's head, the uniform's creases and their shadows; just to point out the obvious evidence...I have say its a match my friend.
__________________
Cur! H0++an
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-15-2012, 07:50 PM
perezfan's Avatar
perezfan perezfan is offline
M@RK ST€!NBERG
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,518
Default

The only nitpick I have is that the bat goes under his chin in the photo, and right into his chin on the card. Probably just artistic license, as the others have pointed out. If I had to vote, I would say that this photo was used as the basis for the Goudey Card. Great find...

On a separate note... this is for horzverti. Not meaning to hijack the thread... I just couldn't resist (given your Avatar!)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg N54Dec 030.jpg (72.5 KB, 193 views)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-16-2012, 10:36 AM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horzverti View Post
Another nice pick up Ben! I would say you have close enough of a match. The illustrator most likely used his/her artistic license for embellishment. Given the angle of bat, the position of the Horse's head, the uniform's creases and their shadows; just to point out the obvious evidence...I have say its a match my friend.
Thank you Kurt. I would agree with you.. the hands are an exact match also.
I would love to see some of your recent pickups...do share.

Perezfan-Monkeys are funny.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-16-2012, 11:05 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Same photo-shoot, different photo.

I would state the same even if it was my own photo - I've had several Reulbachs that were very close to the T206 card, and I really wish they were the original photo, but they are just very close. I have an entire file of 'close but no banana' T206 photos.

Here's a good example that I recently mentioned to Tim - I still need to provide him with the actual image used, which is pictured below. Sure, the artist could have used the top photo and come up with the one to the right of it, so without the existence of the bottom photo, we would never know for sure. Same goes for the Gehrig photo. Also, I realize that in the case of this particular card, it wasn't a matter of an artist painting the card image using the technique used for the Gehrig card, but you get my drift.

Ben, sorry about overreacting to your post the other day. Take that or not, but my comment is sincere.

__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 11-30-2014 at 12:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-16-2012, 01:31 PM
PhilNap's Avatar
PhilNap PhilNap is offline
Phil Nap
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
Same photo-shoot, different photo.

I would state the same even if it was my own photo - I've had several Reulbachs that were very close to the T206 card, and I really wish they were the original photo, but they are just very close. I have an entire file of 'close but no banana' T206 photos.

Here's a good example that I recently mentioned to Tim - I still need to provide him with the actual image used, which is pictured below. Sure, the artist could have used the top photo and come up with the one to the right of it, so without the existence of the bottom photo, we would never know for sure. Same goes for the Gehrig photo. Also, I realize that in the case of this particular card, it wasn't a matter of an artist painting the card image using the technique used for the Gehrig card, but you get my drift.

Ben, sorry about overreacting to your post the other day. Take that or not, but my comment is sincere.

If the differences are the result of a different photo from the same photo shoot then why change the style of the hat. Clearly he made artistic changes. I voted that the photo was used for the card. Great job picking up on it Ben. I don't think I would have noticed the match.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-16-2012, 03:32 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilNap View Post
If the differences are the result of a different photo from the same photo shoot then why change the style of the hat. Clearly he made artistic changes. I voted that the photo was used for the card. Great job picking up on it Ben. I don't think I would have noticed the match.
A difference in hat style doesn't validate the other differences. I still think it's from the same photo shoot.

Another way of trying to determine the likelihood that it's the original photo, would be to look at other original photos used by artists to create the '33 and '34 Goudeys. This would tell you how much artistic license they were likely to have taken.

I agree that it's a great pick-up.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-18-2012, 02:22 PM
GKreindler's Avatar
GKreindler GKreindler is offline
Graig Kreindler
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,417
Default

I don't wanna create any waves or anything, but I just thought I'd put this out there as some food for thought. And in no way is this meant to attack anyone.

In that '33 Goudey set (as well many other period illustrated ones), you have a lot of examples of familiar photos being used for reference in the illustrations.

Check out these Ruth cards and photo:







I think it's fair to say that they're the same image. But they're still some minor differences here and there.

And on the other side of the spectrum are the illustrations that very much resemble certain photos, but have larger differences. The one that immediately comes to mind for me is the Hubbell from the same set (or even the one from the '34 issue):





I don't think the comparison is as obvious between the two, but I believe that the illustration was done from this photo. Obviously, the jersey's different and he's not wearing but holding his hat in the card, but still, they're too many things that make me think that it was just a liberty taken by the artist.

The gestures are pretty identical, especially in regard to his lean against the fence. Also, his right hand falls the same way in both images. His left hand, though hold the hat, still very much mimics the grip in the photo. The jersey, though without any lettering, has man of the same folds that are in the photo, and the collar/neck hole shape is exactly the same. The positioning of the belt buckle is the same. The faces (minus the hat) are incredibly similar.

So, I can look at that photo and say that in my own opinion, it was used to make the Goudey card. But of course, I could be wrong, and it's possible that another photo could surface that looks more like the image on the card. But unless one is found, then I wouldn't think otherwise.

The Elberfeld example that Runscott provided is an interesting one. In the one with Detroit jersey, they're a lot of similarities. But after seeing the shot of him with NY, I would definitely say that that one was what the artist had in hand. But what's to be said about the differences between his NY jersey in the studio photo and the one on the card? Obviously, a lot of t-206 artists took liberties in those jerseys, whether it came to collar folds or whatever was written across their chests. That was mostly done in order to be current with the correct teams the players were on, or just to make it obvious to the viewer who was on what team.

There's going to be some liberties taken in all of these illustrated cards, and I guess the more obvious the liberty, the more distant said illustration gets from said card muddies. In my eyes, that Gehrig card is an example of that. I think the biggest liberty was taken in his face. The lighting that's in that face has gotta be made up, as there was no way that the brim of that hat he's wearing in the card would cover that entire face in shadow, and then produce that depicted light pattern in his jersey. With that in mind, I'm pretty darn sure that a photo depicting that exact lighting condition doesn't exist. And of course, I could be wrong, too!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can't be 100% that any of these are from those exact photos. All we can do is use our eyes and make the most educated guess possible. Kinda like the autograph game. I guess to know for sure, we would have had to have seen the artist in the process of creating the illustration.

And now please excuse me while my head explodes.

Graig
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-18-2012, 03:30 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GKreindler View Post
I don't think the comparison is as obvious between the two, but I believe that the illustration was done from this photo. Obviously, the jersey's different and he's not wearing but holding his hat in the card, but still, they're too many things that make me think that it was just a liberty taken by the artist.
....
Graig
Graig, I understand artistic creative changes, but I believe that for most of the '33 and '34 Goudeys, the artists didn't change face angle, bat positioning, etc, which would be indicated if the Gehrig photo in question were the one used for the '34 card. The Hubbell photo that you presented is a perfect example of how photos can look so similar that the slight differences would lead you to believe that the incorrect one was used to create a card.

Here's a 1937 Goudey Wide Pen photo card that was created from the same photo used for the '33 and '34 , and like the Gehrig, probably came from the same photo shoot. 'GIANTS' is not on the jersey - not sure if the '37 Wide Pens were altered a little for the card, but I'm guessing it was removed from the photo.

__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 12-18-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-18-2012, 03:47 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

The fact that no one has been able to post a photo of the Gehrig image "from the same photo shoot" used for the Goudey card makes me agree with you Graig. Until one is shown, I would think that this would be considered the image. I also agree with you on the lighting of the face… no way that a photo from same shoot would have it. Drop the head down to fit on the card(like you did to get the hat in), it is almost identical. The subtle angle differences could easily have been done my artist. Although, there is an exact image of Hubble.. I get your point. The elberfield example given was completely different with little to no similarities(other than being the same person). I am not even convinced the two examples given are even from the same shoot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKreindler View Post
I don't wanna create any waves or anything, but I just thought I'd put this out there as some food for thought. And in no way is this meant to attack anyone.

In that '33 Goudey set (as well many other period illustrated ones), you have a lot of examples of familiar photos being used for reference in the illustrations.

Check out these Ruth cards and photo:







I think it's fair to say that they're the same image. But they're still some minor differences here and there.

And on the other side of the spectrum are the illustrations that very much resemble certain photos, but have larger differences. The one that immediately comes to mind for me is the Hubbell from the same set (or even the one from the '34 issue):





I don't think the comparison is as obvious between the two, but I believe that the illustration was done from this photo. Obviously, the jersey's different and he's not wearing but holding his hat in the card, but still, they're too many things that make me think that it was just a liberty taken by the artist.

The gestures are pretty identical, especially in regard to his lean against the fence. Also, his right hand falls the same way in both images. His left hand, though hold the hat, still very much mimics the grip in the photo. The jersey, though without any lettering, has man of the same folds that are in the photo, and the collar/neck hole shape is exactly the same. The positioning of the belt buckle is the same. The faces (minus the hat) are incredibly similar.

So, I can look at that photo and say that in my own opinion, it was used to make the Goudey card. But of course, I could be wrong, and it's possible that another photo could surface that looks more like the image on the card. But unless one is found, then I wouldn't think otherwise.

The Elberfeld example that Runscott provided is an interesting one. In the one with Detroit jersey, they're a lot of similarities. But after seeing the shot of him with NY, I would definitely say that that one was what the artist had in hand. But what's to be said about the differences between his NY jersey in the studio photo and the one on the card? Obviously, a lot of t-206 artists took liberties in those jerseys, whether it came to collar folds or whatever was written across their chests. That was mostly done in order to be current with the correct teams the players were on, or just to make it obvious to the viewer who was on what team.

There's going to be some liberties taken in all of these illustrated cards, and I guess the more obvious the liberty, the more distant said illustration gets from said card muddies. In my eyes, that Gehrig card is an example of that. I think the biggest liberty was taken in his face. The lighting that's in that face has gotta be made up, as there was no way that the brim of that hat he's wearing in the card would cover that entire face in shadow, and then produce that depicted light pattern in his jersey. With that in mind, I'm pretty darn sure that a photo depicting that exact lighting condition doesn't exist. And of course, I could be wrong, too!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can't be 100% that any of these are from those exact photos. All we can do is use our eyes and make the most educated guess possible. Kinda like the autograph game. I guess to know for sure, we would have had to have seen the artist in the process of creating the illustration.

And now please excuse me while my head explodes.

Graig
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-18-2012 at 04:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-18-2012, 04:15 PM
GKreindler's Avatar
GKreindler GKreindler is offline
Graig Kreindler
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,417
Default

Hahaha! My hat tastes good.

And there you go - I stand corrected. I guess we can never be sure 100%. And man, sometimes that sucks.

Thanks for pointing this out Scott.

Graig
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-18-2012, 04:30 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Graig, it does suck. Given the fact that multiple photos, with slight variations, could have been taken at the same time as ANY photo actually used to produce a card, it's going to be tough to ever prove that any inexact ones were ever used. I do think it's cool the way Hubbell barely changed position, but the photographer had him move his hat, slightly tilt his head, and a few other slight variations. The fingers on his right hand are in almost the exact same position in both photos.

But the Gehrig certainly could be the right photo, and Ben thinks it is which is ultimately all that counts.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 12-18-2012 at 04:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-18-2012, 04:41 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
Graig, it does suck. Given the fact that multiple photos, with slight variations, could have been taken at the same time as ANY photo actually used to produce a card, it's going to be tough to ever prove that any inexact ones were ever used. I do think it's cool the way Hubbell barely changed position, but the photographer had him move his hat, slightly tilt his head, and a few other slight variations. The fingers on his right hand are in almost the exact same position in both photos.

But the Gehrig certainly could be the right photo, and Ben thinks it is which is ultimately all that counts.
I assume it is, like the majority of the people who voted, because there is no image to dispute otherwise and it is a reasonable assumption. If the image existed, obviously I would think differently. Thank you for your opinion. I would like to hear other's thoughts. Come one come all.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-18-2012 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-18-2012, 05:06 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

.....

duplicate
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 12-18-2012 at 05:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-18-2012, 05:11 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young View Post
I assume it is, like the majority of the people who voted, because there is no image to dispute otherwise and it is a reasonable assumption. If the image existed, obviously I would think differently. Thank you for your opinion. I would like to hear other's thoughts. Come one come all.
This image didn't exist until you located it.

Thanks for posting this thread - very informative and I think it gave a lot of people some additional insight into the 'photo to card' process.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-18-2012, 05:40 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
This image didn't exist until you located it.

Thanks for posting this thread - very informative and I think it gave a lot of people some additional insight into the 'photo to card' process.
Or.... the image simply doesn't exist nor has it ever which is a distinct possibility.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-18-2012 at 05:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-18-2012, 05:55 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

edited

Sorry, I get caught up in logic and this is about emotion.

Congratulations once again on your find - it really is 'close enough', regardless.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 12-18-2012 at 06:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-18-2012, 06:17 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm trying to work with your logic.

So...using your logic, until I showed the '37 Wide Pen image of Hubbell, that photograph didn't exist either, which proved that the photo shown by Graig, which was very similar to the '34 Hubbell card, was the one used to create the Hubbell '34 Goudey?

I think I'm finally beginning to understand this: whichever known photo looks the most like a card, is the one that was used to create the card. As closer matches are found, the actual photo used to create a card 75 years ago....changes? I feel like I'm in an Oliver Stone movie.
Nope.. that is not what I am saying at all. Good God man... what is wrong with you? I know where you stand, which is different that the majority who voted so far. You will never follow any logical person's thoughts which is clear. Please... go find another thread to cause drama as you certainly enjoy it. If I am like walking on eggshells talking to, why comment at all and why continue? Why send me pm out of the blue to provoke me by talking trash about Henry Yee(who I respect and so do many others). Why call me a hater on a thread yesterday for no reason and then apologize. Why tell me to go talk about my photos.. but without you, then start right in the very next day? Scott, Please... LESS DRAMA. We all know how you voted. If my opinion is truly the only one that matters, then yours is no longer needed.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-18-2012 at 07:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-18-2012, 06:24 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
edited

Sorry, I get caught up in logic and this is about emotion.

Congratulations once again on your find - it really is 'close enough', regardless.
Actually.. I think you get caught up in emotion.. OVER... AND OVER.. AND OVER AGAIN. But thank you.. it is close enough for me and the majority so far because it is a logical explanation(on this card and image). Comparing the Gehrig to your images posted was not logical at all as it related to your argument. Graig actually supplied a better example. Your argument was that it was the same photo shoot yet you posted two images that were not the same photo shoot nor was your original photo close to the card IMO. That being said, you could be right but so could those who voted yes. Unless the artist documented this, we will never know unless a photo which is an exact match shows up. There could be one that is closer.. who knows.. but never an exact match IMO because of the light on face and different style hat. I also would think that the image would be published on such an important card. Again, I could be wrong. I appreciate differences of opinions(hence my poll), but I really do not know what your argument even is exactly Scott.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-18-2012 at 06:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-18-2012, 07:23 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young View Post
Actually.. I think you get caught up in emotion.. OVER... AND OVER.. AND OVER AGAIN. But thank you.. it is close enough for me and the majority so far because it is a logical explanation(on this card and image). Comparing the Gehrig to your images posted was not logical at all as it related to your argument. Graig actually supplied a better example. Your argument was that it was the same photo shoot yet you posted two images that were not the same photo shoot nor was your original photo close to the card IMO. That being said, you could be right but so could those who voted yes. Unless the artist documented this, we will never know unless a photo which is an exact match shows up. There could be one that is closer.. who knows.. but never an exact match IMO because of the light on face and different style hat. I also would think that the image would be published on such an important card. Again, I could be wrong. I appreciate differences of opinions(hence my poll), but I really do not know what your argument even is exactly Scott.
I'm going to ignore the baloney part of the above, and just respond to the part related to the card discussion. I'm also not going to dumb it down, as the others responding to my posts had no problem comprehending it.

For anyone else still reading - Ben is stuck on the lighting and the cap, not getting that if there is an 'exact match' photo, it would have had the same shadow and cap issue, and the artist STILL would have changed those items. These guys were not Graig Kindlers - you can tell as much by the crappy representation of Gehrig's face on that card. These artists didn't take a well-composed photo and try to improve on it by changing the player's physical orientation - at least we have no indication that they did, and it makes no sense, as composition was the photographer's job. This particular photo (Ben's) is very well-composed - no need to change anything from the forehead down, other than what made sense based on the move from b&w to color. The more I think through this, the more I am certain that Ben's photo was NOT used to create the Gehrig card.

I was actually hoping it WAS the card, but after the last few posts, I could care less. There you go, Ben - a little emotion for you
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-18-2012, 07:37 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

One last thing before I exit this thread for good.

I considered not even posting that '37 Wide Pen - Ben was looking for pats on the back, not any evidence that he might be incorrect, and I have the utmost respect for Graig. It just seemed like it would be 'lying' to not show it, and I didn't think Graig would take it wrong, and he didn't (thanks).

Graig - I completely understand your thoughts about artistic license. I have some other thoughts about how the color Goudeys were actually created, which is why I'm pretty adamant about the 'exact photo' thing. I'll share those thoughts by PM or start another thread after this topic cools down.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-18-2012, 07:37 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
I'm going to ignore the baloney part of the above, and just respond to the part related to the card discussion. I'm also not going to dumb it down, as the others responding to my posts had no problem comprehending it.

For anyone else still reading - Ben is stuck on the lighting and the cap, not getting that if there is an 'exact match' photo, it would have had the same shadow and cap issue, and the artist STILL would have changed those items. These guys were not Graig Kindlers - you can tell as much by the crappy representation of Gehrig's face on that card. These artists didn't take a well-composed photo and try to improve on it by changing the player's physical orientation - at least we have no indication that they did, and it makes no sense, as composition was the photographer's job. This particular photo (Ben's) is very well-composed - no need to change anything from the forehead down, other than what made sense based on the move from b&w to color. The more I think through this, the more I am certain that Ben's photo was NOT used to create the Gehrig card.

I was actually hoping it WAS the card, but after the last few posts, I could care less. There you go, Ben - a little emotion for you
No need to dumb it down smarty pants. I am not caught up on anything and you sure make a lot of assumptions about painters back then. You actually must know more about painting than.. well Graig.

Really?? You were hoping that it was the image?? Just for me??? That is so nice of you and makes perfect sense to everyone reading I am sure.

The reason why you didn't comment on the paragragh above, is because you have nothing to say to defend it. Baloney?? Are you you saying you didn't do/say these things?? Youare a trouble maker and all over the place. Correct me if I am wrong but you have been kicked off here before correct?
All over the place as you may be, you could be right as it relates to this photo. I just do not believe that you are.. that's all Scott. You ok?
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-18-2012 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-18-2012, 07:47 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
One last thing before I exit this thread for good.

I considered not even posting that '37 Wide Pen - Ben was looking for pats on the back, not any evidence that he might be incorrect,
What evidence?? I don't need pats on the back buddy.. but I do like to share things I own and see other's items. Encouragement is important in any hobby. I do think you need some hugs though. Regarding leaving for good. PLEASE don't make promises you will not follow through with. At least wait more than 24 hrs. deal?

I guess you could always start a new dramatic thread titled "Baseball card art/photo:gehrig 34 goudey or not gehrig 34 goudey.that is the question PART 2".

Oh RUNSCOTT......
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection

Last edited by Forever Young; 12-18-2012 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:36 PM
horzverti's Avatar
horzverti horzverti is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan View Post
The only nitpick I have is that the bat goes under his chin in the photo, and right into his chin on the card. Probably just artistic license, as the others have pointed out. If I had to vote, I would say that this photo was used as the basis for the Goudey Card. Great find...

On a separate note... this is for horzverti. Not meaning to hijack the thread... I just couldn't resist (given your Avatar!)
Outstanding monkey with bat! I am floored! I want it!
__________________
Cur! H0++an
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-19-2012, 10:17 PM
perezfan's Avatar
perezfan perezfan is offline
M@RK ST€!NBERG
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,518
Default

I thought you might like him.... As it turns out, this thread needed some comic releif!

But now the really important question... Is that the same Monkey as in your Avatar, or did the sculptor take some artistic liberties?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg N54Stanford 064.jpg (71.0 KB, 44 views)
File Type: jpg monkeybat.jpg (1.5 KB, 45 views)

Last edited by perezfan; 12-19-2012 at 10:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-20-2012, 04:52 AM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan View Post
I thought you might like him.... As it turns out, this thread needed some comic releif!

But now the really important question... Is that the same Monkey as in your Avatar, or did the sculptor take some artistic liberties?
Mark,
Are you sure you want to go there?
I vote close enough for government work...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-20-2012, 07:14 AM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Garner View Post
Mark,
Are you sure you want to go there?
I vote close enough for government work...
Did I mention monkeys are funny? I think you got yourself a real winner on that ceramic piece.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1933 Goudey Baseball Cards: Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, & Ott - Are these Legit or Fakes? meatloaf Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 12 12-29-2011 06:04 PM
1934 Goudey Gehrig Raw Question???? jg8422 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 8 07-20-2011 01:49 PM
Fake '33 Goudey Lou Gehrig card on eBay iggyman Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 26 04-19-2010 11:15 AM
Question about 1933 Goudey Lou Gehrig Cards Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 3 12-01-2006 11:49 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 AM.


ebay GSB