T206 BURNS (corrected glove variation)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK

Hey Scott, I was not being defensive or attacking you in the least. I think you might well be right. Could be a photo of a guy clowning around that got recorded for eternity. Just pointing out the differences in the T206 and T3 art. Lots of differences. Not just a glove touch-up. I do think they were painted/drawn off the same original pic, but I haven't seen it. I haven't even looked to tell you the truth. Probably out there somewhere. The only reason for my post was to spread a little light. I have zero interest in drama with anyone here, especially with someone who has contributed more than I ever will.

Ken. No one thought you were or did. I was clarifying what seemed to be a a confusing post I made that was possibly misunderstood.

Most T206's were created with photographs as their base image. Some artistic license existed - compare Matty black cap to white cap.

This isn't speculation - you can actually verify this for card images where their photographic sources are known. For others, such as 'Donlin seated', it's obvious even if you don't have the photograph in front of you.

To me, the idea that Burns' glove was free-handed backwards is ludicrous, but before you take offense, that last statement is in response to John's post, not yours. So if anyone's going to get hurt by my comments, it would be John. John doesn't get mad - he gets even. Very dangerous person. Don't piss him off. If you do, he'll make sure that you NEVER ever get a Corcoran baseball card, even if some weird circumstance arose where you wanted one.

JK

[deadballfreaK]

It does seem odd that an artist would paint a backwards glove from a photo. I agree completely that the guy was painting off a photograph and just copying what he saw. Prank or did just some one throw him a glove while a photographer was there taking pics? I doubt we will ever know. Pretty sure there is no corrected version of a T206 Burns though.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK

It does seem odd that an artist would paint a backwards glove from a photo. I agree completely that the guy was painting off a photograph and just copying what he saw. Prank or did just some one throw him a glove while a photographer was there taking pics? I doubt we will ever know. Pretty sure there is no corrected version of a T206 Burns though.

Don't think of it as painting from a photo. I'll write something up from notes I've copied from Steve and post it here later.

There was definitely artist creativity, but not so much. Here's an example - notice anything wrong with it?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ken. No one thought you were or did. I was clarifying what seemed to be a a confusing post I made that was possibly misunderstood.

Most T206's were created with photographs as their base image. Some artistic license existed - compare Matty black cap to white cap.

This isn't speculation - you can actually verify this for card images where their photographic sources are known. For others, such as 'Donlin seated', it's obvious even if you don't have the photograph in front of you.

To me, the idea that Burns' glove was free-handed backwards is ludicrous, but before you take offense, that last statement is in response to John's post, not yours. So if anyone's going to get hurt by my comments, it would be John. John doesn't get mad - he gets even. Very dangerous person. Don't piss him off. If you do, he'll make sure that you NEVER ever get a Corcoran baseball card, even if some weird circumstance arose where you wanted one.

JK

I think you're giving the t206 artists too much credit, you have no idea if they were baseball fans. Not everyone looks at that pic and sees a glove on the wrong hand. Ever see the statue of Babe Ruth outside Camden Yards? I'm pretty sure that was a much bigger deal than 1 of 520 drawings in the t206 set.

The T3 pic of him is probably the real photo, why would they correct it? They weren't as playful?

I know where you live Scott, I have no problem knocking down your lawn elf and stealing your newspaper

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I think you're giving the t206 artists too much credit, you have no idea if they were baseball fans. Not everyone looks at that pic and sees a glove on the wrong hand.

I'm repeating myself, but... I think that for T206s, in most cases they simply dealt with the photo they were given, and made few modifications to the actual player image other than color, background and team names/logos;i.e-the artist didn't have to look at a blob on Burns hand and make a decision as to whether or not to draw a left or right-handed glove.

I also believe that much more time and effort was put into the T3's. Other than Baker, of course. That was just plain stupid.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm repeating myself, but... I think that for T206s, in most cases they simply dealt with the photo they were given, and made few modifications to the actual player image other than color, background and team names/logos;i.e-the artist didn't have to look at a blob on Burns hand and make a decision as to whether or not to draw a left or right-handed glove.

I also believe that much more time and effort was put into the T3's. Other than Baker, of course. That was just plain stupid.

It's possible the pic wasn't that clear when looking at the glove. It was a dark object on a black and white photo, who knows how visible it was in the pic. Until you find the original photo, I'm going with artist error

[Bpm0014]

What's wrong with Al Orth??

[Craig M]

Andy,

I knew that I had seen a variation in that glove on a T206 somewhere when doing my research but was unsure where in the heck I saw it.

I didn't realize that Chris Browne was the owner of the card. I will have to write him to see if he still has it in his collection.

Good stuff!!!

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

What's wrong with Al Orth??

Keep looking. Something will eventually look strange to you. I didn't notice it until recently, but it's there...or not there.

[deadballfreaK]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Keep looking. Something will eventually look strange to you. I didn't notice it until recently, but it's there...or not there.

The "R" in Orth?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by z28jd

It's possible the pic wasn't that clear when looking at the glove. It was a dark object on a black and white photo, who knows how visible it was in the pic. Until you find the original photo, I'm going with artist error

To me, it's a stretch to assume that because he's wearing the wrong glove, that the original photo must have had an indistinguishable blob where his glove would have been, but okay.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Runscott

To me, it's a stretch to assume that because he's wearing the wrong glove, that the original photo must have had an indistinguishable blob where his glove would have been, but okay.

That was just going off what you said, that a pre-1909 black and white outdoor picture would clearly show detail on a glove. Not hard to believe that it might not

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by z28jd

That was just going off what you said, that a pre-1909 black and white outdoor picture would clearly show detail on a glove. Not hard to believe that it might not

I get it

I get it

I get it





I disagree