T206 Super Print Artists -- More Unanswer(ed/able) Questions

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I was flipping back and forth between my Mathewson pitching poses this morning and I stumbled across something that never occurred to me before -- the artists of the two Mathewson pitching pose cards had to be different artists.





Then I started to think about the other times two artists made two different versions of the same pose -- and, unless I'm missing something, it was all in the Super Prints"

Evers Batting (blue/yellow)
Cobb Portrait (red/green)
Chase Portrait (pink/blue)
Chase Throwing (white cap/dark cap)
Chance Portrait (red/yellow)

Differently drawn images of the same player on the same team.

So, my theory is that a different artist was commissioned to paint the 6 super prints. That Cobb green was drawn first and followed by Cobb Red. And that the artist that drew Matty Dark was going off of the Matty White drawing and extrapolating that to the Matty Dark cap -- that he was not working off the original photograph, but just "enhancing" the original T206 art.

Any thoughts? Like, why would they need a separate artist to render the Super Prints? Why not just reissue the original Cobb Green as a Super Print?

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Thanks for bringing attention to this thread. I didn't notice until about 6th months a go that the Bender treed and no trees were actually quite different. It looks like another lovely quirk to the T206 set.

lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

Doesn't the Matty Dark Cap look more like the real person, i.e. a better likeness? Maybe just my opinion, but one might assume that the better likeness drawing would have been the one that was drawn first from an actual photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I do think the Matty Dark Cap is more lifelike. I really think it was drawn from a photo and then the White Cap was drawn from the black cap -- but why would you even need these two variations? And, if you were going to Super Print the dark cap, were you intentionally short printing the white cap? And why?

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Maybe someone dropped the plate for the black cap? or vice versa. Or maybe they were being politically correct.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

Here's a full shot of the post via a T3
although the face looks diff compared to the white & black cap T206's

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

The NY is on the sleeve of the T3. Curious of all the variations.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Drouillard

I've always liked the Chase portraits. In my ignorance, I always thought that the Pink Chase was a cropped image of the blue Chase. I never considered that they could have been painted by different artists. They are very similar, but when you look at them close you can see so many variances. Chase looks younger in the Pink portrait. I wonder which image came first?



Thanks for the interesting post.

Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

JOE D

The PINK Chase was printed in the 150/350 Series; and therefore, was the 1st image. The BLUE Chase is in the 350/460 Series.
They used the same photo; obviously, the cropping is different.

PAUL M

To your original question, in the White Cap Matty (150/350 series), Matty's eyebrows are thicker and his hair is a lighter brown.....
and, these subtle printing differences create an image variation from his subsequent Dark Cap version (350/460 series).

I have noticed that Portraits in the 1st Series that are reused in the 350 and 460 Series have subtle differences. A good example of
this is the Elberfeld portrait where he has Brown eyes in the NY version and Blue eyes in the Washington version (350-only Series).

DITTO...... for the brown eyes of the Green Cobb (150/350) vs the bluish eyes of the Red Cobb (350/460).


Indeed, in the 1st Series of 156 cards, they printed with PALE BLUE ink (Waddell is the only exception). In the 350 and 460 Series they
printing with a rich deep BLUE ink....e.g. all three Chase's, Joe Doyle, Dygert, Knabe, Knight, Krause, Lord, Murray, O'Hara, Speaker, etc.


The only difference in the Chase (throwing) cards is the use of White vs Brown coloring. The White Cap version has a White ball in his hand,
while the Dark Cap version has a Brown ball in his hand.


To summarize....I don't really think the image differences are due to different artistic renderings; but, are attributable to the difference in ink
colors in the 1st Series vs the 2nd and 3rd Series, and how these colors were applied.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I agree that with some of these there is just a different ink/color set being used. But the Matty's are so starkly different, it really gets me thinking about why that is.

I had not thought of the two Bender variations -- trees and no trees. Other than Bender, are there any other same team, same pose, different potential artist?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I tried to post earlier but the site seemed mired up...


When I got my second Mathewson white border tobacco card, I noticed the difference between the white cap and dark cap wasn't just the color of the cap. It took me several minutes before I picked up on that. I had never noticed the difference until I owned one of each. That was nearly 20 years ago. A good aspect of the internet today is that a fellow can see images of all of these cards right at home. Difficult to see so many cards in the old days.

I did not attribute it to different artists, but rather different (although similar) photos being used to create the lithographs. I guess it could be a different artist. But not necessarily.

Good stuff, guys.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It would be unrealistic to think that a company of this size, with a set comprising 523 different designs, and who produced at least tens of millions of cards, would only have one artist working for them. I'm sure there were many.

Same could be said of the E90-1 set. When you examine the different poses it's clear they were executed by different artists.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I agree that they are completely different drawings and not just changes made at the press with different inks, etc. In the two Matty's the orientation of the head is completely different (more tipped in one, more straight up in the other) and in the black cap version his face seems narrower - it has a different shape. Same with the two Cobbs - differences are in hair and even expression.

Maybe the changes come from reuse or repair/maintenance of the same plates, and after the work was done on them they weren't the same? Or (if we know that two versions were in use at the same time) maybe the first plate was somehow used to make the second plate, and the differences in actual contour and configuration came about because of the inability to copy it over exactly.

I like the thought that they are second renditions of the same photo though, because ... well ... I just like the thought of it. It would mean that the second artiste (hee) intentionally wanted to portray something just a subtle shade different. A different attitude, a different look of determination, whatever. It's fun to think that the changes represent a new interpretation.

So, we should be able to know which of a pair was first and which was second. And can people start posting a Version 1 and Version 2 of all the near-duplicates? Who knows, maybe the differences will have some kind of pattern and we could see that it was actually the same second artist on all of them.

Cool post Paul. Honestly, I don't remember seeing it the first time and it seems like I would have. I've been really drawn to the differences in the Cobb portraits.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joann- the "D" of Detroit is also different on each of the Cobb portraits.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Ted Z,
Funny also if you look close at the Elberfeld you can also make out the old "w" under the New York Logo. So I guess that means the W card was produced first and the new york was second. Intresting that they made corrections as players were traded.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

AL S

What you are suggesting does not fit with the timeline of when these cards were produced; and, when
Elberfeld was traded to Washington.
The NY version of Elberfeld is in the 1st series (150) and was printed in early 1909. Subsequently, when
the 350-only series was printed in early 1910, Elberfeld had been traded (Dec 16, 1909) to Washington.

Shown here are three of my Elberfeld (NY) cards....notice those marks do not normally exist on his shirt.
The marks that you pointed out on that one particular card are extraneous (and not hints of the "W".....
they don't even line up where the top tips of the "W" should be on his shirt).



TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

So the no team designation of Elberfeld NY has the dots on the uniform? I was not even aware there were three types (Wash, NY Amer and no team) of this portrait; just thought only the first two existed. Is the no team variation on any of the main T206 checklists? I just checked the superset lists and T206 and only the Wash and NY Amer are listed as portrait types. What is going on with the no team version?!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The Elberfeld card without the team designation has been scratched out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Closer observation of the different Series Matty cards shows the White Cap version with a fuller face,
heavier eyebrows, slightly larger eyes, and light brown hair....when compared to the Dark Cap version.
These differences may or may not be attributable to different artists; but, simply that American Litho.
worked from different photographs.

The White Cap pose (150 series) was designed circa 1908....while the Dark Cap pose (350/460 series)
was designed in late 1909. With a time interval of about 1 year, it is certainly plausible that they used
a new updated photo to design the Dark Cap version.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Whew! For a moment there I thought I would have to rearrange my 15 pocket sheets.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

I dont know Ted those 3 dots seem to me to look like an early kinda air brushing out so to speak of the Washington W they are right in line and would appear to me the New York was done after and over the top of it! Im not and expert as I know you are Im just bringing up an observation I can see with my eye. Does anyone else see what Im seeing?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Al- I see the same two dots you do, and they appear only on the card at the right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

There also appears to be a dot between the legs of the "R".

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Yes Barry but maybe Teds first set of pictures makes it a little more clear The 2 card post. one is new york one is washington. You can also see it lower down in the in the R also. Like I said maybe its me but it looks to me like it was removed and the New york was put over the top of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Thanks Dave I thought it was me and I was seeing things!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Do I have to scan these 3 cards again and add my Washington version so you can see that you are mis-reading this ?

What you guys are saying is impossible. The Washington version was printed approx. a year later than these 150 series
cards. And yes....two of the NY cards are all Piedmont 150's and the 3rd is a Sovereign 150.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

No Ted thats O.K. I guess Dave and I are thinking on the same plain!!! And we must be wrong!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- I am sure you are correct but I likewise saw the shadow of what looked like a "W" in both the three picture version, and as Al pointed out, the two picture one. All of our collective eyes are playing tricks on us.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Actually, I am not stating or commenting on the order of printing. I'm just counting dots.....

The dots are definitely on the card Ted posted but what they mean is an open question. They could possibly even be remnants of a "D" from his Detroit days (last year in Motown was 1903. He went to NY mideason 1903). I wonder when the photo the portrait is taken from was made? If you look at the Dahlen photo which his T206 portrait is based upon , the studio used little whited out circles on his photo to obscure the team name on the uniform, presumably after he was traded . I wonder if those are what we are seeing. Weren't a lot of the T206 photos taken in 1903/04? I lost my Dahlen photo scan in my hard drive crash but the photo studio had a way to obscure the uniform lettering that was very obvious.

While this debate goes on, The Tabasco Kid was a tough guy and had one of the greatest baseball nicknames of all time.

From Baseballlibrary.com:

"The 5'5" Elberfeld played a fiery brand of baseball, challenging baserunners to slash him out of their way, living up to the title "The Tabasco Kid." His legs were badly scarred, and he grimly poured raw whiskey into spike wounds to cauterize them. He hit .310 as Detroit's shortstop his first full season, 1901, and was the Highlanders' everyday shortstop from mid-1903 through 1907. After a short, unsuccessful stint as New York's manager for part of 1908, he went back to playing full time the following year. He remained in baseball for decades, battling umpires and foes as a hotheaded minor league manager."

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Thanks Dave Thanks Barry! I guess we cant be right if Ted Z thinks the time line is wrong!Just a healthy debate on what we see!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

The dots are there, but I don't think they can be remnants of a "W".

Go back up to the two-card post - with both the Washington and NY version. There are actually three dots high in the NY card in that one. There are the two that are mentioned from the three-card scan, plus there is a third dot in the top fork of the K in New York.

Additionally, there may be a second low dot, with the bottom of the K being bulged and dark as if there were a second dot there too.

If you put the three high and two low together, you can see that they could approximate the positions of the three high spots and two valleys of a W - just like a remnant.

BUT! They can't be. Look at the size of the New York. It fits cleanly between the two vertical buttons.

The W spans one button - it doesn't go in between two buttons. And even if it were aligned to go in between two buttons, it's way too tall to fit.

So there are definitely dots there, and they certainly appear to be ... "something". But even based on visual evidence alone (and not at all on card or baseball history knowledge), which is about all I have to go on, I say no way on a W.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

We're all seeing something- just not sure what it is.