Net54baseball.com Forums - It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - It is not imaginary if others see it too. (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=78435)

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: identify7eBay's completed listings of n172 shows quite a range of old judge colors. Without opening the actual listing, the cards shown include: Krock - yellow O'Day - olive Thompson - purple Arundel - brown Orr - grey/green Hawes - orange Clark - grey/brown Williamson - red/orange Admittedly it is probably just variability in the scanners, my monitor and eyesight, plus me wanting to believe that Old Judges come in all of these colors, and more. Does anybody see it too, or is just me?

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: jay behrenssepia, purple and pink are the only colors I've ever seen. But then I haven't seen a whole lot. Something on the order maybe 500 or so. Jay My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Julie VognarTrying to make my Mack a little more of a picture, my scanner came out with this color (and it does look better than the pale shadow the card is): <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/Ojmack.JPG">

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)I guess people used to place a small premium on the pinks, today I think people are more interested in contrast and clarity of the picture. I don't care what color the card is. I just want a picture that is dark and clear. In some cases you don't get much of a choice you just go after the card because it's available.

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: identify7When I look at Dave Levin’s cards for sale, I come away with the exact opinion which was stated by Jay. Other than relatively few pink cards, there is little variance among the colors of Old Judges. And certainly as has been pointed out by Julie, you can not always trust the portrayals shown on eBay as being accurate regarding the color of the card offered. Further, when sellers are contacted in this regard, although they sincerely try to help you regarding the card’s appearance; differences in perception complimented by not viewing the card in a field of other similarly colored cards, impedes the seller from being able to accurately convey subtle differences in coloration. Now, the Batter Up and the w517 sets of cards boast of colors which certainly can be called blue, green, red, etc. The Old Judge set does not contain (other than pink) such clearly defined colors. Most of my (few) OJs are the characteristic light tan/grey background and foreground, with highlights and detail near black. One small grouping of five cards however, appears to me different. And this is where I am not sure how much of this difference is my own imagination. I will explain this below, then send the men in those clean white coats to take me away. First off, the players depicted have dark uniforms, this increases the brown color perception on all cards, I think. One of the cards has a primarily dark background and tremendous contrast. This one looks distinctly brown. Two of the cards have less contrast than the other three. I freely admit that I am out of my element here, because I don’t know anything about composition, photography, colors, etc. But what I see with these less distinct cards is that the decrease in contrast is not attributable to a lessening in the image sharpness, although that may be a factor, but the visual impact is a deepening in the background and foreground coloration. So the overall card appears to be tinted. One of these has an overall deeper tan appearance; the other is closer to orange. Now it is clear when you put something colored orange next to this “orange” card, the card looks brown. But when you take it away, but leave the other cards, its appearance is way more orange. The other two cards are very similar to each other. I think that the dark uniforms make them look more black and white, or I guess brown and light tan, than OJs with lighter uniforms seem. When I then go back and look at David Levine’s site, I can see differences among his cards; and I wonder – would anyone care about these very minor differences? Does anyone care which color Batter Up card they have? I look at the cards that I have and the cards that I want, and one of the common threads is that they are substantially duotone cards. I was looking at a r346 blue tint Johnny Mize tonight and wondering why it was priced above the Bowman’s and Topps of the same years. I am still wondering – it is a strip card. Doesn’t everyone hate them? Ok, you can send them now. I will go quietly. But is there a tradeoff between contrast and hue in OJs?

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Julie VognarContrast--what you are after, in addition to clarity--is available in any colors the OJ comes in, as long as the dark is truly dark and the light is truly light. A few appropriate shadows don't hurt, either. With modern photography, we would call a photograph with excellent contrast and clarity "perfectly exposed and focused,"--although there are a lot of things we can do to modern photographs, and even old ones, with modern equipment to correct imperfectly exposed--and to a lesser extent--imperfectly focused pictures. Old Judges were photographed twice. Once to take the original picture of the single player, or two players, or player and mascot, or player and DOG. Then 25-30 of these individual photos were put in a block, with spaces between them, and re=photographed. The spaces between the photographs in the original set making the borders in the finished product, after the cards had been cut apart. With no stop-action photography, glaring lights, a certain amount of immobility required in the player (or DOG), two photography sessions--I think we're lucky to have ANY Old Judges with good contrast and good focus... <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/Galvin.jpg"> The Pud Galvin has excellent focus and contrast (though there is a fault in the photograph--the white spot)-- but because of some drunken cutter, shows the lines that were to serve as guidelines for the cutter to cut along..but he didn't

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: identify7If the card was cut better and did not have the white spot, would you be more happy with it? Or do you feel that these (original) characteristics add character to the piece?

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Jay MillerN172s basically come with sepia, pinkish and purplish coloration, with the latter being very scarce. The pinkish cards tend to have inferior photographic quality and have always been priced well under their sepia counterparts. The "sepia" photos exhibit some subdegree of color variation with the color ranging from more black to more brown and everything in between. At the end of the day I think most collectors value photo quality most highly and coloration variations not affecting this quality are largely ignored.

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Chris BlandJay (or anyone else) - do you have a scan of an OJ with a purple tint? I havent ever seen one before. -Chris

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Julie Vognarand white absolutely nuts? I assumed so, but just thought I would check it out. I think he had sepia confused with toning. 2) The Oakland Museum has little curtains in front of all their albumen prints, because they believe that ALL albumen prints basically never stop developing. I have heard that this is true ONLY if the albumen print (OJs are albumen prints) were not properly "stopped" and "fixed." Which is true (I keep all my photos in the dark, anyway, including OJs)? I have a Duffy holding a bat--and the bat itself disappeasred AFTER I traded for it... Just checking: all OJs are interior shots--ground and scenery were supplied by curtains. There were no "flash" bulbs--all light was bright and constant. Although there was no stop-action photography, one didn't have to hold absolutely still (check out Whitney's dog). It's only when the cards simulate action (guy seems to be catching a ball--ball is actually on a string. Guy tags another guy--both guys actually holding still) that the positioning looks awkward. Nice of Radbourne not to blink... Batless (almost) Duffy he arrived holding one... Gil: When I bought the card from Jay, I asked if I were paying extra for the weird cut, and he said no, it would be more expensive if it were well cut. But I do like the revealing lines aroubnd the picture. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/BN172duf002.jpg">

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: identify7But others are looking, they too can see. All of the exterior OJ photos were taken outside, I believe.

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Julie Vognarcountry background is a curtain--it was the first OJ I ever got. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/BN172Dct002.jpg"> Oh, and notice the blurry ball in his hand--he's moving it slightly.

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Jay MillerSome Brooklyn and all California League cards are outside photos.

It is not imaginary if others see it too.

Posted By: Julie VognarBut, Jay--not all of them by any means, right? (I don't happen to haver any Brooklyn or California League ones).