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

[slidekellyslide]

It's not like this is getting by anyone anyway....and there is some question to its authenticity.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_6658wt_939

What do you guys think? I'm thinking someone is trying to pull a fast one here...I told them they'd make a lot more money if they had either Josh Evans or Rob Lifson look it over for them, but they don't seem to care what I think.

[MGHPro]

Its a great looking piece but a lot of their artwork looks suspicious. They have many pieces that look like copies of very expensive artwork. I say its a recent piece.
Matt

[murphusa]

It is a crude painting of the original ad. Nice item which I think they are selling at an opening bid that is a little high.

I do not think they are trying to fool anyone

[slidekellyslide]

If they take my advice and have an expert look it over then I will think they are not trying to pull a fast one..if they continue to let this run as is..especially with the comments they've made in the Q&A Section then it makes me suspicious.

[FUBAR]

First thing i notice is how beat up the frame is but how nice the painting is, condition wise, frame is dirty, painting is clean... screams reprint put into an older frame to me. I would avoid!

[GasHouseGang]

I would tend to agree with Jim. Looks like a new piece, made to deceive, put into an old frame. Whoever painted it, did a poor job. If this was made to advertise their product, you should be able to recognize the "famous" baseball players using their gloves. I can not because they are so poorly rendered.

[drc]

I would safely guess it's a modern piece (putting it politely). If you think it would look nice on your wall, it has some value. Clearly the 1920s date and 'used for advertising' is in highly questionable.

P.s., the frame is hideous. Throw it in the dumpster.

[Mr. Mitt]

When compared to an original Peach advertising piece (below), the painting is laughable. There are problems, too numerous to mention, with each glance. The perspective isn't even correct and the shadowing is horrendous. That said, I couldn't paint it!

[murphusa]

Hey all it is is a painting of the ad nothing more. The seller answered all of my questions but why should they take my word for it when it could look to them like I am trying to steal the item from them at a lower price

Sometimes we here should not always think fraud

[barrysloate]

That's one heck of a great poster...the original, of course.

[jeffects]

Wow, The difference in quality between the one Jerry posted and the ebay one is night and day. I know nothing about vintage advertising, but putting it in a frame that old and beat up, seems obviously meant to imply age. Too bad the print looks brand new. No toning or anything.

[Jay Wolt]

Here's the 2 pieces scanned for full comparison.
Since I have no artistic tendancies, the new painting isn't that bad,
as I would be doing it in stick men w/ my talent.
Naturally far from the original's quality & appeal though.

[bh3443]

Slide, I inboxed you. please rd when you get a moment.
Well, this is for sale from an ebayer in my "back-yard", and was wondering if we knew/hnow him/her!
What a great piece! Seems like something my daughters would buy me in the poster section at Newbury Comics and I'd add a cheap frame and hang it in my office for a few months before cheanging the decor!
Barry, anyone...... ever see an original?
Regards,
Bill Hedin

[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.

[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.

[benjulmag]

The players are not generic; they are readily recognizable. I am aware of three originals in various forms of condition, and they are all identical (as one would expect from chromolithograph printed from the same plate). So any variation in a player's uniform between the painting and the print was done at the discretion of the artist.

[howard38]

Thanks, it's hard to tell from the photo.

[Mr. Mitt]

Chance, Kling, Stahl, Mathewson, Walsh, Cobb, Bender, Chance, Lajoie, Wagner, Archer, Bresnahan, Gibson, Baker, McGraw, Mack, Meyers, Speaker and Johnson are the players depicted.

[ctownboy]

On the print, it looks like McGraw and Mack have their respective names over their heads while in the painting the names are missing. My guess is the artist didn't know who the guys in the dugout were and didn't want to take a chance messing up their names so they left the names off.

David

[martindl]

Interesting to me is that the player under the 'V' looks black in the original image, face only as the visible hand is white, yet white in the copy. I was hoping for a better image of the original to get a better look but I can't find one. Is that supposed to be Bender?

[Mr. Mitt]

Originally Posted by martindl

Interesting to me is that the player under the 'V' looks black in the original image, face only as the visible hand is white, yet white in the copy. I was hoping for a better image of the original to get a better look but I can't find one. Is that supposed to be Bender?

The player under the "V" is Wagner. The names provided earlier are from left to right... i.e. Matty is four, Cobb is six, Lajoie is nine and Wagner is ten).

[murphusa]

learn to paint, it sold for $2,750.00

[ruth-gehrig]

Amazing isn't it. Hope the buyer doesn't think it's an original sign