|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
First of all, thank you Steve for making these images larger. I see what you're trying to do here now. For example, the Jackie Robinson in the middle has a pinkish face, and when I scroll up I see that the Appling and Mize cards have pinkish faces as well. However, not all the cards I see in this column seem to match.
Anyways, I do think it would be great if we could group all these cards like what you're trying to do now, but it's a lot more complicated than you think. Let's take a look at the following Robinson, for example: ![]() This card also has a pinkish face, but the cap is different. The blue color that was used does not match the one you have posted. Furthermore, you can also see all the details on the cap (lines and shading). Yours doesn't have this either. So, where exactly would we place this card on your spreadsheet? ![]()
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Some of the pink cards were difficult to tell, either because of some difference or the colors on the scan weren't great. Robinson was one of the tough ones. The pink example I used I identified from the print flaw at the left, which is pink. First glance, I'd put it in column one, shaded hat no lines at the side. But, yes, the face is really pinkish. If it is, it would be a transitional type. And to make it more interesting, a sort I hadn't found before, using a column 1 style for everything except the pink. The best example of transitional types so far is Jensen. Column 1 has red that almost covers the cap and light blue that matches it. Column 2 has the same red, but a cut down cap. Column 3 is pink, that is cut away from the cap Column 4 is red that is cut away from the cap. And it's entirely possible that none of them really belong in column 1 - there may be a little extra detail under the brim, but the hat has no shading. I went to the images I'd saved for Robinson, and only one is high resolution. It appears as if the shaded hat version may be screened differently than the others, but since the other two are lower res, I can't be certain. Overall, it is a work in progress. Until I can find more images of transitional types it will be hard to put each one into a category. And some of the cards I didn't see any notable differences. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
It also looks like the red/pink is printed on top of the other colors, which is really unusual.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Anyways, like I said, I do find it interesting what you're trying to do here, but I don't think you'll be able to figure anything out. It looks like the guys who printed these cards were DRUNK on the job. Last edited by samosa4u; 04-06-2020 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Spelling |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The ones with and without the lines at the side are also easy as long as there's somewhere that line would be. The ones I have in columns 1 and 3 were the "normal" ones. The ones I call transitional weren't common. The Hermansk Spelling is as far as I can tell always pink, except for that one weird one in col 5. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll throw in a few more......
![]() And a magenta Hopp..….plus a front image on the back of another Hopp. TED Z T206 Reference . |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is another interesting one:
|
![]() |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 49 Leaf common numbers spreadsheet | steve B | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 03-26-2020 08:26 PM |
| Same Picture, Different Years... How Common is This? | STL1944 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 06-04-2017 12:58 PM |
| WTB 60 Leaf high numbers | hoot-owl | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 02-14-2015 11:47 AM |
| FOR SALE: 1949 Leaf Baseball Common/Minor Star lot of 30 (30% of set) G/VG | NewEnglandBaseBallist | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 01-15-2010 01:22 PM |
| A Common sells for 4.8 times guide, fetches $3005 | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 08-17-2006 09:40 AM |