|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>Good Morning,<br><br>I'm a relatively new T206 collector and I just collect the Hall of Famers. I have 22 of them right now. I prefer the action shots to the portraits. I enjoy seeing the players in motion or holding a bat, ball or glove. The action shots have more interesting backgrounds and more colors. If a player has more than one variation, I will not bid/buy the portrait variation. This works out well for me since the portraits seem to sell for more money.<br><br>Why is that, and what are your preferences?<br><br>I look forward to your opinions.<br><br>Have a great day,<br>Chris
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Eric S.</b><p>I agree that some portraits are less interesting then the action shots, but there are some worth mentioning. Tinker, Cobb (green/red), M. Brown are three that come to mind as exceptional cards. I have not had more difficulty finding portraits in my endeavors but it depends on who you're looking for. Many of the high end cards in this set have portraits and those with red backgrounds show defects very easily as well as fading which I think can have a large impact on the visual quality thus making the nicer cards in higher demand (only my opinion). There are some resources on this site as well as T206.org (click on the "links" button for more) and Scot A. Readers publication that can help answer your questions.<br><br><br><br><br><br>Good luck with the HOFers.<br><br><br><br>Eric
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Chris- I've always liked the portraits better because I feel the artwork is really state of the art. When you look at a Cy Young portrait, you know it is him. The pitching pose without the glove, however, is a poor likeness of him. If the name was not printed on the bottom I would never know who I was looking at.<br><br>But I know many collectors who do prefer the action shots.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Doug</b><p>I always preferred the action shots because they are more colorful.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>Thanks for your response. I have the Cobb bat off and I think it's a much nicer card than his two portraits. The colors are amazing to me.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>Great point! I never really thought about that, but now that I am, I can definitely see that making the portraits more desirable to some. That's the case with the Walter Johnson hands at chest card I have...you can't really tell it's him.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>I agree. How's it going? Any new additions?
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Eric S.</b><p>That's a great card. His facial expression really represents Cobb well too. I'm not opposing the view that the actions shots are better, but some of the portraits are really cool and artistic and deserve a nod. Have a look at the Tinker port when you get a chance. The Nap with bat has a similar background to your Cobb that's nice too.<br><br>These are not HOFers, but cool backgrounds:<br><br>Leifeld - Sky<br>Lake - City<br>O'leary - Creek<br><br><br><br><br>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>I would also add to this that the Evers green is quite a sharp card.<br>in addition to the Kling red.<br><br>But I do, generally, also prefer the action poses for the background colors and uniform detail.<br>Can you really beat Bergen batting, with his huge coat?<br>or the wild colors of the sky behind Lefty Leifeld, pitching?<br><br>and don't even get me started on the sunsets (Lajoie, w/bat) or the building backgrounds (Del Howard)!<br>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>I'll have to check those cards out. Thanks.<br><br>I do have the Lajoie with bat and orange/red sky is awesome.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Chris- the Walter Johnson pitching pose is certainly not a well executed card. Clearly different artists designed the portrait and action poses.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>I agree, but it is one of my favorites anyway. I just read his biography that was written by his grandson and I have a great appreciation of the Big Train.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Doug Moore</b><p>Some of the action shots (Burch Batting and Pattee come to mind) have tremedous background colors but many of the action shots look to me like cartoon characters. I'm a big Tris Speaker fan and his card doesn't look much like him. I'm a portrait guy all the way. Check out a high grade Doc White, Patsy Dougherty, Al Bridwell(without cap) or the Cubs Steinfeldt or Overall portraits and you'll see the the best artwork available at this time.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Tim Sanders</b><p>I'm not much of a portrait guy but the Nap Rucker and Hans Lobert Portraits take the cake for me- they look lifelike in their detail. But I still prefer a Maloney, Howard or Moriarity for the overall backgrounds!!!
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>I forgot about the Lobert! Fantastic card. that one is very unique in its coloration and darker tone, I think.<br>agree on the Steinfeldt and Overall portraits as well.<br><br>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>Good stuff, guys. Thanks.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>I like a mixture of both these are IMO some of the best cards in the set.<br>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>Love the Murphy, Herzog and Conroy!
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Tim Sanders</b><p>Are my eyes playing tricks on me or did he sign one Tommie and the other Tommy? Do you notice that often with Pre War sigs (spelling differences that is?)
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...does it both ways. I've seen a number of examples of each. <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 Net54 T206 archive, signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Tim Sanders</b><p>Either way you're right they both look great but the portrait frames the sig so nicely!!! Great cards!
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>JB</b><p> <br>I am also in agreement that the action cards appeal to me. Some of my favs are Shannon, Owen, Bradley, Griffith,Donohue,Pattee,Evers and Ewing. The colors are fantastic. This being said, i own a Red Portrait Cobb. ")<br><br> <br>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>that Leach portrait looks as though it's Eli Manning of Big Blue fame...
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>The portraits have a classic look, a standard look, that makes them my favorites.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I have always preferred the action shots. Never understood why the portraits seemed to command the higher prices.<br>JimB
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Joe Jones</b><p>Those look sweet John Wonkaticket
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Bobby I</b><p>Maybe its the uniformity of the portraits, the way they look all lined up on the mantle, shelf, etc. No contest in my opinion.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Jerry</b><p>Here's a few of mine, that I like. VG/Ex is where I reside.<br><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/t206hofers/websize/9lajoie.jpg" width="379" height="640" alt="9lajoie.jpg"><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/t206hofers/websize/sgccollins.jpg" width="373" height="640" alt="sgccollins.jpg"></p><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/t206hofers/websize/waddell.jpg" width="392" height="640" alt="waddell.jpg"><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/t206hofers/websize/sgctinker.jpg" width="368" height="640" alt="sgctinker.jpg"></p><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/t206hofers/websize/sgcjennings.jpg" width="389" height="640" alt="sgcjennings.jpg"><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/t206hofers/websize/marquard2.jpg" width="375" height="640" alt="marquard2.jpg"></p>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Scott Stiffler</b><p>Chris, like you I am also a relatively new T206 collector and am collecting HOFers. Unlike you, I decided to pick portraits where they are available...and when they aren't, get an action shot! I've been watching you build your collection (I'm right underneath you on the SGC registry) and laughed when I saw our focus was exactly opposite. <br><br><br><br>I agree with you that there is not much prettier than the Cobb bat off, but I'd say the same thing for the Johnson portrait. I'm pretty sure you can't lose either way <img src="/images/wink.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="wink.gif"> <br><br><br><br>Best of luck with your collection.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Nothing beats a bright rich portrait. <br><br><img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/Johnsontinkerportssgc60.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br>
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>quite the eye for the aesthetic.<br>thanks for posting
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Chris Diaz</b><p>Thanks everyone for making this thread so interesting, and also for posting some beautiful cards.<br><br>Scott-<br><br>It's cool to know we are building that set side by side. You have some great-looking cards. Good luck on your collection too.
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I always thought this was a nice portrait....always wanted one till I got it last year.<br><br><br><br><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1233111521.JPG" alt="[linked image]">
|
T206 portraits vs. "action" shots. Thoughts?
Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Leon,<br>Okay, since you posted yours. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> <br><br><img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/1hinduwaddellfront-2.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/1hinduwaddelback-2.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
I honestly prefer the portraits but some action shots are pretty cool, too.
|
Eddie Collins Rookie Card
Until the last REA auction when Rob Lifson spoke otherwise, I always thought the Eddie Collins rookie was the T206 150 series portrait card. But Rob states that he/REA felt that his true rookie was the 1909 Philadelphia Caramel card of him and, of course, there was one of him in the auction, which really didn't attract a lot of attention. If Rob is right, there should have been some kind of upward value adjustment going on for the E95 card, which hasn't happened yet, I don't think. Any thoughts?
If I recall many years ago, a 2nd T206 Collins proof appeared, an action pose which never got issued and it was purchased by none other than Charlie Sheen (who else?). Anybody remember that? |
Yes, it was later sold by Sheen to Keith Olberman, for less that half what Sheen paid for it. It will likely remain in KO's collection forever.
|
1 Attachment(s)
|
1 Attachment(s)
Getting back on topic, I've always preferred the action pictures to the portraits. One of my favorite T206s is the Mitchell. It reminds me of my favoirte card as a child, the '65 Yastrzemski.
Attachment 215026 |
I prefer the portraits.
Let the psychoanalysis begin. I crave consistency. T206 portraits, 1929 Kashin, 1931 Metros, 1939 Salutations, 1939 Play Ball, 1956 Topps. Any series/set that has repeatable poses. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:23 PM. |