1953 Topps - was a hand drawn set

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Was any Topps issue after that hand drawn? I don't think any other 50s Topps were drawn, but I lost track after that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Thankfully, Topps apparently ditched the artist who looked like he was trying to copy the artistic style of the 1950-52 Bowmans (he never came close to matching it). Almost all of Topps' later efforts used either color photos or tinted black and white photos, although it's clear some painting was done on the 1955 and 1956 sets in particular. Also, the 1959 set features the "Baseball Thrills" series, which is clearly painted. There were scattered painted cards issued in many Topps sets up until at least 1962 (not tinted, but painted).

While I never have been a big fan of 1953 Topps, I've always been amused by the billboards in the background, which often feature the name of the player on the card ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

The artist who created the artwork for an early Mickey Mantle card for Topps (1952?) was at a card show years ago - signing autographs on an 8x10 of the card.

I think the artists name is Jerry Dvorak, if memory serves me right.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

How can you critisize the guy for his artistic ability when he made Yogi Berra look so good?

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Topps commisioned the artist Jerry Dvorak to paint the paintings used to make the 1953 Topps set. Dvorak was also an artist for Paramount Cartoons, which made movie cartoons like Casper the Ghost and Little LuLu.

There are probably a few recent years Topps cards that were based on sketches or paintings. Other manufacturers had artists make paintings for inserts. Perhaps most notably the modern Donruss Diamond Kings.

2 years ago Robert Edward Auctions sold the paintings of noted baseball artist Dick Perez, and it included the complete sets of paintings for several 1990s insert sets.

Many are fans of the 1953 Topps, but I agree that it's hard to beat the 1950-52 Bowmans.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

So then, as far as we know the '53 Topps set is the last set manufactured by Topps to have every card drawn/painted except for perhaps some recent unidentified set(s); correct? Thats darn near 50 years of photo based cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Excluding the Pre-War cards, paintings tend to look dumb on cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Agreed, but I would include a great many pre-war as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: edacra

Redman's are another great set that's all illustration work.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I agree. I prefer photo cards, but likely hastily dismissed some good painting and drawing sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL

Gerry Dvorak was a very close personal friend of mine. I met him at a small NJ
show back in 1982. There is a very nice article written about Gerry in VCBC. It
is in the Dec. 1999 issue (#21). If anyone is interested I still have a few copies.

Gerry was a very gracious man and a true artist. In 1952 Topps contracred him
(and other artists) to paint pictures of BB players for their 1953 set. Gerry recalls
he was given photos of approx. 90 ML players to paint and Topps printed most
of them.

Mickey Mantle commissioned Gerry to paint some of Mickey's favorite BB Stars
for his Restaurant in NYC. Gerry called me back about 1990 and asked me for....
"a really big favor". Mantle wanted Gerry to to do a large painting of his 1952 Topps
card. Gerry knew I had one and asked me if he could borrow it for several weeks
to do the painting. Although, we were great friends, he felt very awkward about this
request and offered to give me a security deposit on this card. I drove to his house
and lent him my 52T Mantle and simply told him to call me when the painting was
completed.

Gerry was truely a great person and this story is meant to reflect exactly that.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Ted, that's interesting that your card was used. Collectors can find prints of the painting of your card that are autographed by Mantle. I beleive they were officially made to be signed by Mantle, though I can't remember who originally marketed them. If a collector can't afford the painting, he or she can purchase the print. Board members can say, "I didn't know Mantle or the painter, but I knew the guy who owned the card."

I saw a history of Paramount Cartoons, a division of Hollywood's famous Paramount Studios, and there was a picture of Dvorak as an artist in the 1950s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

David

I am not sure if we are talking about the same painting. When Gerry completed
the 1952 Topps card painting he called me to give me back my card and asked me
what I thought about the painting. I got a good, close-up look at it in his studio.
I was surprised how large it was. However, I'm sure small prints of it could have
been produced for the purposes you noted.

There is a subtle flaw in this painting of the 52T Mantle that only I know of. If you
have a copy of the ones you are referring to, could you please post a large, clear
scan. And, I will be able to verify if we are talking about Gerry's painting of my
card.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I don't have an image, but you will see them offered for sale with some regularity. As Mantle autographed them, the have good value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Mr. Rudd: I have never gotten into autograph collecting, but can appreciate some of the attractiveness of it. Last week, precipitated in part by one of your previous statements regarding the relative bargain status of '30s MLB autographs, I checked some on eBay. I noted a substantial difference in price between autographs on original cards when compared with the same autograph on a reprint (~2X$). What impact would you estimate an autograph on a copy of a painting of an original card - as is being discussed here, would have? Lesser than an autographed original card, I would guess, but greater than a reprint.

And for fun, what value impact would Mantle's autograph on the original painting have had?

Edited to add: a point which I had hoped would come out in this thread is the Dugout Quiz on the backs of these cards, which are better than the trivia questions of most years issues. Does anyone know where I could obtain scan of all of these Dugout Quizes, or a list of them?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

For the print of the card painting, most of the value is that it was autogrpaphed by Mantle. The print itself would have minor value.

A Mantle signed original 1952 Topps or 1953 Topps would be worth quite a bit more value than the print, in part because the card itself have value.

If Mantle signed the 1952 Topps Dvorak painting (which he did not), it would likely have raised the value.

So there is no confusion, Dvorak didn't make the original art for Mantle's 1952 Topps card, but was asked to make repro painting years later. Dvorak, however, did make the painting used to make Mantle's 1953 card.

If you have a big painting of Nolan Ryan or Paul Molitor, it will raise the value to get it autographed neatly by the player.

I once owned a Dvorak painting. A collector had Buck Leonard signed a blank canvas at an autograph show, then hired Dvorak to paint a painting of Buck around it. The autograph was part of the painting rather than being an addition.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...needed some color. And, besides, how often do you get to post a 1953 Topps Mantle in a pre-war baseball card forum. This one is special to me because I got to hold it when I was 16, but the gentleman didn't want to sell it to me until I was 31.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

For Gil, Leroy Neiman's limited edition seriagraph's screen prints of famous athletes, from Roger Clemens to Ali, are expensive on their own-- but are more valuable if signed by the athlete. In part, it expands the potential buyer audience as it is not an athlete autographed item.

Even Andy Warhol's prints of celebrities and athletes, which can can be extremely expensive on their own, are probably more valuable if signed by the celebrity. Warhol had nothing against autographs, as he had Wayne Gretzky autograph a number of his prints of Gretzky.

For the better living celebrity photographs in my collection, I likely would not want the celebrity to autograph the front. Though, I don't have a problem with celebrities stopping by my home asking to autograph my photos. If I start having this problem, I have baseballs for them to sign.