I'm outing an auction...so sue me.

[oriolesbb6]

Are members saying this is not an oil on canvas? It looks like an amateur painting of an original print.

[ruth-gehrig]

Yeah I'll be passing on this one

[Mr. Mitt]

Originally Posted by oriolesbb6

Are members saying this is not an oil on canvas? It looks like an amateur painting of an original print.

It's likely an original oil on canvas (though none of us have actually seen it live) of the original advertisement painted by a decent amature. It remains to be seen if it's period or modern. Obviously not as valuable as the original print ad, but still a neat piece.

[oriolesbb6]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mitt

It's likely an original oil on canvas (though none of us have actually seen it live) of the original advertisement painted by a decent amature. It remains to be seen if it's period or modern. Obviously not as valuable as the original print ad, but still a neat piece.

I agree-I'm not sure what the issue is? Its obviously an amateur copy of a print ad? In the title the seller is using key words to trigger a search. If they are stating without question that it is from the twenties then I could see an issue. As a small town auction guy we always use key words to trigger searches however, carefully not misrepresenting an item; ie Marked as, or ca., or using ? or possibly in our descriptions. Obviously from the sellers feedback they sell quite a bit and do quite well. I think it is what it is.

[martindl]

A quick look at the sellers completed items shows that their items typically sell for opening bid or sometimes with best offer, but rarely with multiple bids. What does this mean? Nothing necessarily, but it would suggest that the art buying public doesn't think much of the pieces, or perhaps the prices. Many of the pieces seem to be of a similar hand to that of this baseball scene. I don't think it's vintage and definitely not of the vintage the seller is claiming. Having said all that, it'd still make a nice display.

[Mr. Mitt]

Sure, even with its faults, it would make a great display piece in someone's memorabilia room. It's an iconic image, loaded with HoFers, from a classic advertising piece of an extremely rare manufacturer. If $400 doesn't mean that much to you (because you'll likely never get that out of it if you try to turn it over), and you'll enjoy it hanging on your wall, go after it.

[drc]

Personally, I think the original sign is dumb looking.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by drc

Personally, I think the original sign is dumb looking.

The staging reminds me of a TV sitcom when folks sit around a table and one long side of the table is left open so the camera can see everyone's face. Obviously, the # of legends depicted carries the piece.

[murphusa]

learn to paint, it sold for $2,750.00

[Leon]

Originally Posted by drc

Personally, I think the original sign is dumb looking.

This is why they make chocolate and vanilla. To me that original sign is one of the best in the hobby. If one came up for sale I would consider selling my Horner League Composite and replacing it, as the only thing on my office wall, with a real vintage print like the one shown. It's that great looking to me. I absolutely understand some folks, like you David, might not care for it. No worries at all but I absolutely love it and always have. The first one I saw was probably 10-12 yrs ago and have thought it was great since the first time I laid eyes on it. regards

[howard38]

As a painting I find even the original pretty awful. The perspective and composition are poor and the figures of the ballplayers don't look "natural" on the background. It may be that the background was done first and the figures later by another artist. I do like it as a piece of baseball memorabilia though.

Does anyone know if the players are recognizable by their features as well as their uniforms and names or are they generic? I assume that there were a number of these pieces and wonder if the figures could represent different players based on the region or the whims of the displayer. I bring this up because the catcher appears to be an Athletic in one and a Yankee in the other so the copy could have been done from a different original.