o/t Can someone tell me what a 53 topps artist proof is made of

[Bigb13]

Can someone tell me what a 53 topps artist proof is made of. Rob

[Leon]

Most proofs I have seen have either been on regular card stock (or paper) or on canvas, I believe. I am not sure about this series. I would be wary of weird looking cards being called proofs.

[benchod]

Leon I think he is referring to the mini paintings like the ones in the Sy Berger collection that were auctioned off in the last REA

[drc]

Those would be the original art, not proofs, and would be actual paintings. The paintings would have not a dot pattern in the image (under magnification), where as all proofs and cards and reproductions would have the dot pattern.

[drc]

I don't know what the paintings are on, but the REA ones were 3.25 by 4.75 inches and often had glue remnants on back.

Looking up close at one of the REA examples, it doesn't appear to be canvas.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by drc

I don't know what the paintings are on, but the REA ones were 3.25 by 4.75 inches and often had glue remnants on back.

Looking up close at one of the REA examples, it doesn't appear to be canvas.

Some of the paintings vary in size but all should be slabbed by SGC. Here is a link to my posts on these that should help clarify:

http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/se...ll%20Paintings

[timzcardz]

Originally Posted by drc

Those would be the original art, not proofs, and would be actual paintings. The paintings would have not a dot pattern in the image (under magnification), where as all proofs and cards and reproductions would have the dot pattern.

This just sparked a devil's advocate type of thought. How cool would it be if a set was done in pointillism!

[Bigb13]

So it's not made of plastic as the seller states. He told me that it is a way for Topps and the artist to agree on designs.

[tedzan]

I sold my complete set, so excuse me for showing these 1953 reprints....but, there is a great story to go with them.

I was set-up at a BB card show in 1981 and a tall, mature looking gentleman came to my table and selected certain 1953T cards from my album.
When he payed for the 12 - 1953T cards, I asked him why he selected those particular ones ? He responded with...."I did the artwork for them".
Gerry Dvorak was one of several professional artists that Topps contracted to draw the 1953T cards. Gerry and I became great friends over the
years. Also, next time you are dining at Mickey Mantle's restaurant in NYC, check out the paintings on the walls....Gerry did many of them.

For an excellent story on Gerry Dvorak, check out the VCBC magazine, Issue #21 (pages 14-15).



Shown here are 8 of about 50 cards that Gerry did the artwork for Topps.





TED Z

[Bigb13]

Are these cards blank backed and are they bendable? Rob

[Kawika]

Wish I had been able to pick up more of these beauties from last summer's REA - I went strong on the Junior Gilliam, too, but needed to wimp out. Anyway, I am very happy to have ol' Vinegar Bend Mizell in my collection - it is dazzling in hand.
It's difficult to get a good angle on the proof's material or its thickness through the slab. It looks to be approximately the same thickness as the Topps baseball card. It doesn't have any of the "feathery" cut of the cardboard of the waxpack card; it is a far cleaner cut. It suggests to me that artist's paper of some thickness was used rather than it being cardboard. It doesn't look like any kind of hardboard like Masonite to me. It has a certain rigidity to it that I think would rule out it being canvas. Is it bendable? Probably a little bit. As mentioned there is glue on the back. Many of the proofs offered by REA had glue remnants on the front as well. How the proof was used in the mechanical process of producing the BB cards, where the glue came in etc, I have not a clue. Some Board guys have printshop experience and could address that aspect.

[drc]

Some original for 1950s-60s Topps cards were flexichromes which were painted plastic photos. However, I'm pretty darn sure the 1953 paintings aren't flexichromes. And, however again, I don't know what the 1953 Topps paints were on. Looks like some sort of paper stock, but I don't know. It's hard to look at an image and deduce whether it's plasticy or papery in person. If heavy paper is covered in dried acrylic paint, and perhaps a varnish or something put over the surface, I could see how someone might say it has a bendy, plasticy feel. It's going to have a different feel than an index card.

[Exhibitman]

My guess is gouache (an opaque gum-base watercolor) on illustration board. Definitely not Flexichromes; I've seen movie lobby card flexichromes from the era and they look quite different than the 1953 artworks. The texture of the finished items (I saw some at the National) is all wrong for canvas unless the artist gesso'ed the hell out of it then sanded it, which seems unlikely for hundreds of small pictures, and the backs are wrong for canvas. Plastic would not be a medium of choice for works like this. You can turn out nice stuff on plastic but not with the textures and stokes showing on these cards at the speed needed for doing a few hundred paintings for a commercial production anywhere near as easily as on board. Oils seem unlikely just because of the production requirements--so many pieces churned out quickly for Topps screams water-based paint, not oils requiring time to dry. No, commercial illustrations churned out for a commercial production are most likely gouache on board. And damned nice too. Wish I'd gone harder after one in REA. Oh, well. As for glue on the fronts, perhaps residue from the paste-up during the process? I know I have an original piece of W517 art where the pasted-on card number fell off, leaving a slight residue where the circular number should be:

[Bigb13]

What do you guys think about this? Rob http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...K%3AMEWNX%3AIT

[J.McMurry]

This is probably meaningless,and I'm certainly no printing guru,but that is not the same paper that the original set was printed on. I thought proofs were to simulate the actual production run.(?)

[tedzan]

This is just a copy of an original piece of artwork. As I prior post here (post #9), Gerry Dvorak was the artist on approx. 50 of the 1953 Topps cards.

During the 1980's and 1990's, Gerry Dvorak would set up at BB card shows and would autograph copies of the artwork he did for Topps back in 1952.
This item of Tommy Byrne is a copy, and is an example of such.

I have a bunch of these copies and when I can find them, I'll post them here.


TED Z

[peterose4hof]

Originally Posted by tedzan

This is just a copy of an original piece of artwork. As I prior post here (post #9), Gerry Dvorak was the artist on approx. 50 of the 1953 Topps cards.

During the 1980's and 1990's, Gerry Dvorak would set up at BB card shows and would autograph copies of the artwork he did for Topps back in 1952.
This item of Tommy Byrne is a copy, and is an example of such.

I have a bunch of these copies and when I can find them, I'll post them here.


TED Z

Sorry to bump such an old thread, but I came across a handful of these copies and I was wondering if anyone could clue me in to an approximate value.

The ones I have are the same size as the original 1953 Topps cards, they are blank-backed and are not signed by the artist. Here's a picture.

[toppcat]

Some clues might be here in a thread on the (old) Network 54 Hockey Forum. 1954-55 Topps Hockey also used paintings and there is a scan of what might be considered a proof about halfway down. http://www.network54.com/Forum/38176...+1954-55+Topps