T206 BURNS (corrected glove variation)
 

Does anyone have the T206 BURNS corrected glove variation?

His card shows him wearing a left-handers glove on his right hand and I am in search of the elusive corrected glove variation.

Craig

If you find one, it would be considered a new discovery. Good luck!

Steve

I have never heard of this card either. Guess you learn something new everyday.

Best,

Andy

And now you know the.....................
 

Actually the best explanation for the Burns T206 card is the Abbott Theory.

Like Jim Abbott, Burns had only one hand and transferred the glove to his pitching hand after each pitch.

Although his Right Arm was never photographed, it is presumed that the contents of his glove as pictured on the T206 contains a less than functional flipper present since birth due to thalidomide that was given to his mother for morning sickness during her pregnancy.

Wait.....Wait......Don't Tell Me :D:D:D:D

The T3 Turkey Red shows the corrected version. He was never wearing a lefty glove, that was just an error by the T206 artist

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...1&postcount=16

Bill Burns wasn't the most professional guy. Called "Sleepy Bill" because he couldn't stay awake on the bench. And everyone knows he was a crook in the Black Sox thing. He might have been out there playing with the wrong glove. They just added another thumb to the T3 version.
http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/...psaea80072.jpg

"...T206 contains a less than functional flipper.."

That's some funny stuff!!

I believe he was clowning for a photo, and the T206 is a close representation of that photo. The T3 looks like the artist actually added a glove finger where the web was in the photo.

But this is one where I would love to see the photo actually used.

The T206 and T3 are completely different drawings off the same original photo. I don't think one was redrawn off the other. The glove sucks on both. T3 better but has 6 fingers.http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/...psb6de539e.jpghttp://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/...ps64fadc79.jpg

Not sure who you are responding to, but in case it was me, and my post was nebulous...

Most T206 art seems to be 'exact' representations of the original photos. It looks to me, like you said, that the T3 was also based on the real photo, but their was an attempt at correcting Burns' silliness.

If you have a copy of the original photo, please post.

Hey Scott, I was not being defensive or attacking you in the least. I think you might well be right. Could be a photo of a guy clowning around that got recorded for eternity. Just pointing out the differences in the T206 and T3 art. Lots of differences. Not just a glove touch-up. I do think they were painted/drawn off the same original pic, but I haven't seen it. I haven't even looked to tell you the truth. Probably out there somewhere. The only reason for my post was to spread a little light. I have zero interest in drama with anyone here, especially with someone who has contributed more than I ever will.

He killed Inego Montoya's father! Prepare to die.

Ok. I'm stupid and I've had too many beers on a Friday night. Inego Montoya?? Did he play 2B for the Reds in the 40s? No idea.

Ken. No one thought you were or did. I was clarifying what seemed to be a a confusing post I made that was possibly misunderstood.

Most T206's were created with photographs as their base image. Some artistic license existed - compare Matty black cap to white cap.

This isn't speculation - you can actually verify this for card images where their photographic sources are known. For others, such as 'Donlin seated', it's obvious even if you don't have the photograph in front of you.

To me, the idea that Burns' glove was free-handed backwards is ludicrous, but before you take offense, that last statement is in response to John's post, not yours. So if anyone's going to get hurt by my comments, it would be John. John doesn't get mad - he gets even. Very dangerous person. Don't piss him off. If you do, he'll make sure that you NEVER ever get a Corcoran baseball card, even if some weird circumstance arose where you wanted one.

JK

It does seem odd that an artist would paint a backwards glove from a photo. I agree completely that the guy was painting off a photograph and just copying what he saw. Prank or did just some one throw him a glove while a photographer was there taking pics? I doubt we will ever know. Pretty sure there is no corrected version of a T206 Burns though.

hahaha, too damn funny! movie: The Princess' Bride.

--mike kilo.

Burns corrected glove
 

Seems like I saw a photo-shopped picture on here of T206 Burns with the glove on the other hand not long ago. Maybe that's what you saw, Craig. You gotta pay close attention for these jokers. Cheers

I'm still lost princess bride?? no f'n idea.

It was a popular movie in the '80's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_Bride_(film)

Chris had posted one:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...1&postcount=16

I think you're giving the t206 artists too much credit, you have no idea if they were baseball fans. Not everyone looks at that pic and sees a glove on the wrong hand. Ever see the statue of Babe Ruth outside Camden Yards? I'm pretty sure that was a much bigger deal than 1 of 520 drawings in the t206 set.

The T3 pic of him is probably the real photo, why would they correct it? They weren't as playful?

I know where you live Scott, I have no problem knocking down your lawn elf and stealing your newspaper

I'm repeating myself, but... I think that for T206s, in most cases they simply dealt with the photo they were given, and made few modifications to the actual player image other than color, background and team names/logos;i.e-the artist didn't have to look at a blob on Burns hand and make a decision as to whether or not to draw a left or right-handed glove.

I also believe that much more time and effort was put into the T3's. Other than Baker, of course. That was just plain stupid.

Don't think of it as painting from a photo. I'll write something up from notes I've copied from Steve :) and post it here later.

There was definitely artist creativity, but not so much. Here's an example - notice anything wrong with it?

http://bmwcards.com/img/full/1909_19..._lynchburg.jpg

It's possible the pic wasn't that clear when looking at the glove. It was a dark object on a black and white photo, who knows how visible it was in the pic. Until you find the original photo, I'm going with artist error

What's wrong with Al Orth??

Extra finger
 

Andy,

I knew that I had seen a variation in that glove on a T206 somewhere when doing my research but was unsure where in the heck I saw it.

I didn't realize that Chris Browne was the owner of the card. I will have to write him to see if he still has it in his collection.

Good stuff!!!

Craig

I bought it off our friend Andrew.

I'm surprised Andrew sold that card to you Chris. You must have had some dollar Bill to Burns! :)

What a goob wants to know
 

Am I just a T206 babe lost in the woods? If this corrected glove T206 Burns exists, shouldn't the T206 set be 525 cards instead of 524? Or is this just some sort of early April Fools Joke pulled over on goobs like myself?

Brian

To me, it's a stretch to assume that because he's wearing the wrong glove, that the original photo must have had an indistinguishable blob where his glove would have been, but okay.

Keep looking. Something will eventually look strange to you. I didn't notice it until recently, but it's there...or not there.

The "R" in Orth?

I give up! What's wrong with the "Curveless Wonder"?

That was just going off what you said, that a pre-1909 black and white outdoor picture would clearly show detail on a glove. Not hard to believe that it might not

no right arm at all?

--mike kilo.

I get it

I get it

I get it





I disagree

And we have a winner. You can almost see his right arm back to the right, ready to throw a ball. But perhaps in the original photo he was wearing a glove on that hand and it had to be removed altogether ?

I hope Ted Z. weighs in on this thread.

His arm is down and behind him. He is pitching.
Basically in this pose except the card cut off the arm.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...9YSXm4FrAGvcAg

His arm is cocked, ready to throw the ball. Perfectly normal I think(?)...

Bruce, I think his right arm was along the horizon to the left, but in the original photo it extended to far to fit in the T206 frame, so it was amputated - that blurry area below and to the left of his chin, is where his arm was in the original photo. Of course I'm just guessing, but the card looks armless as-is.

To the left is Chase a little bit earlier in his throwing motion (glove hand a bit higher). As he brings his glove hand down, his throwing hand should extend out a bit more.

Bumped for George and anyone else interested.

Surprised no one caught this yet. He used an ambidextrous glove.

"Sleepy Bill Burns, the man who helped fix the 1919 World Series, could pitch with either arm, but did so only for exhibitions. He pitched lefthanded in games, then would work out righthanded between starts. He said that kept him in better shape than most pitchers."

http://cpcbaseballtrivia.blogspot.com/

Seems the glove was not an artist error but a nod to the fact that Burns pitched righthanded in exhibitions and between starts. So could be an ambidextrous glove as Michael said, or intentionally "wrong" glove to emphasize this quirk of Burns.

Bill Burns

Thanks for posting the photo Don. I vote for Michael S.'s ambidextrous glove theory in view of the photo and the fact that Burns is known to have pitched with different arms at different times. Would be nice to find indisputable proof though.