1939 Play Ball Color "Proof"
 

I started a thread on 1940 Play Ball Color "Proofs" about six years ago after finding seven of these cards. Last week, I chimed in on another post about the same subject. As a result of my interest in those cards, a longtime collector and Net54 lurker who some of you might be know, Dwight Chapin, sent me this 1939 Play Ball card of Merrill May and asked what I thought about it. So I'm posted it here in an effort to see what board members think.

My first thought is that its artwork very much resembles the 1940 "colorized" cards. While the artwork isn't perfect, it seems unlikely that an artist could have achieved such precision on a small, absorbent piece of cardboard with a brush and paints. As for the notion that the color was added in recent years using modern technology, I have this email from Dwight regarding its origins ...

"I have no record of when I got the card, but I've had it for decades. My best guess is I acquired it sometime in the 1970s, very likely in one of Frank Nagy's auctions, or through the Charles Bray mail auctions, Bray was the successor, more or less, to Jefferson Burdick, and ran sales through a publication called Card Collectors Bulletin."

I've posted one of my 1940 cards for a comparison. Also, here's the thread on the 1940 cards ...

www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=152184

I'm still saying that they were at some point overlaid with color, post production...if you look at the left side of the scan just at the pictures border, you can actually see the black and white base card where the faint green tint missed the edge, also, you can see where that same green addition actually dripped a little at the bottom right corner...

I'm no expert in printing technique or technology, and I agree there's almost no way someone did that with brushes by hand, but it seems pretty obvious that this series is clearly a post production creation and not an original color copy created by Gum Inc

I'm a natural skeptic, so I understand why anyone would question the legitimacy of these cards. But I'm curious how someone managed to add the color post-production if they didn't use a brush. I wouldn't put anything past modern technology, but these cards appear to have been in the hobby for a long time. And even after they generated controversy — and SGC announced they wouldn't grade any more due to the controversy — I managed to convince them to grade the Demaree, which is now in an SGC 60 holder with the notation "color proof" added ...

That's a really cool card. I feel like if it were painted the card would be heavy. The coloring is so crisp and precise. Maybe they were estimating expenses by printing part of the set in color.

unknown card?
 

I am still not certain what it is but it's really cool looking. Thanks for sharing and tell the other person thanks too. Much appreciated.

I think it's interesting that Gum Inc may have attempted to colorize their photos two years in a row and scrapped the idea both times.

One thing that they have going is that they really do seem to be two different attempts, as they look different enough from each other. If the coloring process looked the same both years it would be much more suspect to me.

The color on the '39 looks better then any of the '40s you've posted before. So, there is a possible scenario that they were testing different processes long before they (Bowman) produced the first full color photo baseball cards in 1953.

These remind me a bit of the Topps in house creations used to pitch new sets to the brass by the Creative Department. Topps would take an existing card sometimes and then add elements to it to give a rough approximation of what the proposed set would look like. I could see Gum Inc taking finished cards and overprinting them with color highlights to come up with the examples shown above.

Too bad they never issued a set like either of these. I assume the combined cost of photography and color was too expensive, hence the color illustrations used in 1941.

It's so tough to tell from scans.

I will say that it's quite possible to paint that accurately with a brush even on a card.

But also that it takes some real talent, to the point that if I found a card like that priced low enough for me I'd buy it as a work of art.

The 39 seems more likely painted, there are a few little bits that look hand done. The 40 is really hard to tell, either printed or done by someone very skilled.

A few pics of handcolored postcards from the 30's are here
http://www.tuftsarchives.org/pinehur...red-postcards/

And from Ebay
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pinehurst-NC..._qi=RTM1062687

Pretty spectacular, most aren't quite that good.

Steve B