View Full Version : Horizontal t-206 images
Archive
02-01-2008, 01:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Random question, but I am looking to focus on a couple of new collections. Does anyone know how many horizontal t-206's there are? The horizontal Cracker Jacks are some of my favorites, and I would like to grab some horizontals from other sets. Figured I'd start with the t206's.<br /><br />thanks<br />BK
Archive
02-01-2008, 01:26 PM
Posted By: <b>rob</b><p>41. Joe Birmingham<br />339. George Mullin (Throwing)<br />342. Danny Murphy (Throwing)<br />371. Harry Pattee<br />373. Barney Pelty (Horizontal Photo)<br />387. Jack Powell
Archive
02-01-2008, 01:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Thanks Rob.
Archive
02-01-2008, 01:35 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>the dunn is sometimes called a horizontal but it is not.<br /><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/dcc1/not.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/dcc1/not-1.jpg">
Archive
02-02-2008, 09:45 PM
Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p>It is not ? Who knows ? But who catches something at that angle ?
Archive
02-02-2008, 09:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p><img src="http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/244/34524.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/244/34217.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/244/34214.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/244/34183.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/244/34168.jpg">
Archive
02-03-2008, 05:43 AM
Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>Definitely a strange card. The horizontal position actually is more feasible. In the verticle position the only type of catch that would be possible is an over the shoulder catch with the ball coming from behind Dunn.
Archive
02-03-2008, 05:53 AM
Posted By: <b>Ed McCollum</b><p>giving a reference point to the fact they are horizontal. The solid green color gives no reference point. I've said it here before ... that card is an early version of the the Topps Willie Mays catch card from the late '50s.
Archive
02-03-2008, 06:05 AM
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>there's no way the dunn is a horizontal...debate it all you want. all of the other horizontal poses are obvious...normal poses. the dunn would have to depict him flying through the air...horizontal in mid air...which is not realistic. just mho.<br />
Archive
02-03-2008, 04:24 PM
Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p><img src="http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x160/bobadams123/Grady17.jpg">
Archive
02-03-2008, 05:04 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>diving for balls is very common today,but remember we are talking about 100 years ago. the gloves used, the field conditions just were not conducive for diving head first for balls. now with the large webbing and manicured fields it is common. just like headfirst slides,common now not so 100 years ago.
Archive
02-03-2008, 07:22 PM
Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p>At that time , fields and equipment were top on the line . Why would they go less than 100% ?
Archive
02-03-2008, 07:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Leslie Westbrook</b><p>I believe the photographer (or the player) chose to pose himself in that manner and the photo was taken vertically before it was artistically rendered for this card. However, I believe that pose was chosen so that it could be turned horizontally to look like a diving catch. That explains the green background--green was used to simulate the look of the grass field. If the "natural" background had been used in that pose, a horizon line would be visible behind the player with the card in the vertical position. Also, looking at the card horizontally, it appears to me that the player's shirt and pants sag down a bit as if he was rendered to appear to be diving. Again, just my 2 cents.
Archive
02-03-2008, 08:27 PM
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...Of the "B" on his jersey, it is folly to presume a horizontal image was not conceived; but i tend to agree it was a posed photo, arms in the sky and the green background keeps it beautifully ambiguous.<br /><br />And, of course they dove for fly balls back then--even before gloves were used they'd have done that.<br /><br><br>_ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ _ <br /><br />Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for my blog, interviews, articles, card galleries and more!<br /><br />
Archive
02-04-2008, 05:20 AM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>yes of course they dove for balls back then and went 100%, it happened. they turned the double play back then too, but not as often. thats all i'm saying. show me a picture of a player diving for a ball spread out like that from before 1910.then i'll say there is a chance it was a horizontal image.