Graig, That GVH is fantastic.
And that's a helluva wedding present, sure beats a toaster

Amazing, Graig. As usual.

Thank you so much for all of your wonderful replies, everyone. I REALLY appreciate all of your kind words.

Howard, I've considered historical paintings from time to time, but when it comes down to it, I just don't know if my heart is in it. I mean, it sounds kinda fluffy and all, but I feel like there's something intangible added to this stuff because I love the history of the game so much. When I'm able to approach the easel to do this stuff, I just get super excited. I think if I were to do anything historical and non-sports related, I'd have to have that same feeling in order to not lose my mind. I only think that because I know that when I'm not painting something I have a profound connection with, it can just be torture.

Jay, I hope he feels the same. Otherwise, he won't be my brother anymore. :)

David, thanks so much for your comment. I think you'll enjoy some of the next few updates I'll be doing, as a lot of them will be some of the regulars from the '27 Yanks - and none of the really sexy names, either. I'm tickled pink that they're some people out there who want paintings of Bob Meusel, Herb Pennock, Urban Shocker and Bob Shawkey. Thank god for them.

Graig

Craig- Any thoughts of doing a book like the two Jurinko books that have come out? I would jump at the chance!

Who is Jurinko? Who is Craig?

Ben,
I believe its like the 1981 fleer Craig Nettles (C) a mis print! But a corrected version was put out and it turned into Graig!;);) Now as for Jurinko now thats a different story!:D:D

Graig, tell him to send it to me and I'll be happy to ship him a toaster & a blender ;)

Graig,
That Van Haltren is another in a long line of very special paintings.
My knowledge of the times is such that believe life was pretty hard for people back then. Your painting really shows the wear and tear on his 37yo face. I wonder if he looked this good in real life.
The mustache and jersey again really show remarkable realism.
Fantastic.
Mark

Graig- Please excuse the "C" not first typo and won't be my last.

The books I mentioned featured Andy Jurinko's paintings. The first came out a few years ago SOUL OF THE GAME featuring his paintings of American League players of the 1950s. A second book just came out this summer GOLDEN BOYS featuring his National League paintings of the same era.

Sadly I believe Mr. Jurinko passed in 2011.

HAHAH.. nice. :)

Graig,

Wow, it's avalanches like this that almost make the extended radio silence worth it. If this is what happens when Dean locks you up in the studio for a week, I'm excited/afraid to see what emerges after another long New York winter...

Seriously, that '55 Mantle is amazing (I've seen photographs with less detail!). And I'll always have a mad-clown-shaped place in my heart for Schacht, but despite spending the last several minutes trying to shake free of that Van Haltren image, I remain enthralled by the power of the 'stache (as does Al judging by his expression). Truly an amazing assemblage of faces both well-known and not-so.

If I may pause the praise for a second (don't worry, there's plenty more to come), is it a coincidence that these seem to feature a softer focus for the background elements, or is that just a natural part of the closer-up portraits? I think it's particularly effective with Van Haltren, and I'd love to see the original photo for that one some time.

Keep up the good work, and I'll get back to trying to figure out how to compliment you without sounding repetitive :)

Graig,
Another terrific group of paintings!
Congrats on what appears to me to be your very best year of painting yet.
Without sounding too corny, you keep knocking them out of the park! :)
I'm very proud to say I know you...

BTW, your brother is going to be thrilled with this stunner! ;)

Love the piece for your brother, Graig. Great angle, what a striking image and terrific play with light.

Wow, thank you so much for all of the kind words, everybody. Really. I'm super pleased with this response to Van Haltren!! It may sound a little weird, but I'm really glad I'm able to bring someone like him out of the cobwebs of history. Apparently, he was really some kind of player - a borderline Hall of Famer, even.

Mark, players back then really did have a different look to them. You can just tell that they lived hard lives. I guess back then, baseball, though seemingly a kind of circus act and off the beaten path of life, really was an escape from the mines and mills that still littered the country. Someone like Van Haltren came from the old school, where I guess things really were pretty wild and maybe even a bit less organized. Though, regardless, it's amazing to think that George was hobnobbing with people like Amos Rusie, John Montgomery Ward, and Cap Anson. And they were his contemporaries!!

Mike, I really hope something is in the works regarding a book. My agent sometimes keeps quiet about that sort of stuff, mainly because he knows that I can get overexcited pretty easily, and when stuff happens to fall through (which does indeed happen), I get pretty upset. I guess sometimes it's tougher for me to take things in stride. Either way, Jurinko's first book was pretty awesome. I would kill to have as much work done as him - that's a whole lifetime there! I haven't purchased his second book yet. And no worries on the typo - I get it all the time!

Lance, I think that the softness in the background is pretty common for portraits, especially of that era. And then again, it all really depends on the photographer. Someone like George Burke carried that sort of technique on for the rest of his career, and boy did he really push it. And I guess with someone like Bain, you're getting a bit more information and detail in the back. I guess it kinda depends on the image, but I'll try to adjust things according in a painting, sometimes adding a tiny bit of dimension to things, or touches of atmosphere here and there. If nothing else, it adds a bit of interest to a background that's as plain as the one in the Van Haltren image. With something like a portrait, I definitely like pushing that juxtaposition too, as there isn't a heck of a lot of room for showing a great depth of field.

Scott, I'm glad to say I know you too! I just wish we could have really chatted in Baltimore. Do you have any plans of making it out to Chicago?

Jason, thanks so much!!! That orange-like yellowish touch coming from the left was the most fun to play with, especially when I tried to get it touching off on his skin and jersey.

Thanks again, everybody.

Graig

How is it that you keep getting better and better? That Cobb is super!

Thanks a lot, Mike! I won't lie, sometimes I feel like I'm regressing when it comes to this stuff, so I'm glad you feel that way!

Graig

Pretty new to this forum and just saw this thread for the first time today. Truly fantastic work Graig! Now someone pass me the popcorn.

Regressing? Ummm no!

Looking at your early work and at the most recent is is clear to me that your talent is becoming more refined. Dont get me wrong as I love the early works but it just seems that the more work you do the better your detail becomes. Keep it up!

Hey guys,

I had a question for y'all.

So, I started this 16" x 20" a week or so ago:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...beRuth1919.jpg

And don't worry it's not finished, but it's still gonna be a golden hour thing, with the sun low on the horizon.

But I digress...

The image was from a photo sold in one of Legendary's auctions months ago, and if you remember, was purchased by that Jake fella (I think).

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...128381a_lg.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...128381b_lg.jpg


What I was wondering was, have any of you ever seen this image before that particular auction? It was entirely new to me, and I was just trying to see if I could narrow down a correct date for it. I'm pretty sure the heading from the auction was incorrect with the 1915-18 date, as I'm pretty darn sure that the Red Sox uniforms didn't have that style lettering until 1919, and despite what the description says, I'm pretty sure they had pinstripes as well. I was hoping to get a bit more specific than 1919, though. I checked baseball-reference to look up whatever games Boston played in '18 or '19, as they were the only ones in which Ruth hit more than 10 homers. And of course, I couldn't find any contest against Detroit that included Ruth's 10th homer - he hit that one on July 10 against the Browns.

Am I crazy? And really, if there is an obvious thing I overlooked, feel free to chime in. I mean, even if it was a correct month, it would really help me for whatever narrative I end up writing. And of course, if it's an exact date, then that would be perfect.

Anywho, any help that y'all can provide is GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks,

Graig

I'm no expert on Red Sox uniforms, Graig, but it says "1919" on the PSA label.

According to Dressed to the Nines website, the Red Sox wore that style in 1916,1917 & 1918. By 1919 the pinstripes were gone.

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.o...splay+uniforms

Thanks David and Randall,

This is where some of the issues come from. Marc Okkonen is an INCREDIBLE resource for jerseys and the such. But, sometimes they're some inconsistencies. And it's definitely not often. In this particular circumstance, I think there might be one.

The main reason I think this is because Babe's uniform, even though is lit and all, to me it seems to be too light in value to be the gray away jersey. But then again, from what I've seen Boston didn't have the team name on the front of their home jerseys during that era, so it's possible that was just reserved for the road jerseys.

Then, there's the pinstriping. In the photo, they're very thin but spread far apart. If you look at photos of the away Boston jerseys from that period, all of their pinstripes run very close together. If you look at the home jerseys, according to Okkonen, they did away with pinstripes on the home unis in 1915, though the ones before that year are stretched wider than the other away ones.

Alright, I'm dizzy.

I don't really know what to think. I just wish I could find a few Boston gamers from that era to compare and contrast. And I'm sure if I eventually, do, I'll probably have to change what I've done thus far. It happens.

Thanks for letting me babble.

Graig

There are some photos of the Babe from The Library of Congress website.

#42
 

Graig.......I bet you could make this Burke photo of Jackie come to life. I've always thought in was quite evocative.......

Tim,

You're right - that shot's a beauty. I absolutely love the light hitting him from behind like that. And the look on his face! You can just see that determination and fire. There were few who could emote in their expressions as much as Jackie, and considering what he went through during his first few years in the league, it's even that much more profound.

Thanks for posting it!

Graig

Greg, I did a little digging, and it seems that the newspaper caption affixed to the back was referring to a game played May 12, 1921. Why they would use a Red Sox photo of Ruth when he was in his second season with the Yankees I have no idea. On May 12, 1921 Ruth hit a two-run homer off George Dauss of the Tigers in a 11-10 Yankee win, his 10th of the season, with one man on base. Tellingly, NY Giant George Highpockets Kelly hit his 8th the same day to lead the NL at the time--the caption refers to Ruth being "more or less pressed by Kelly across the page there" (a reference to sharing headlines in New York?) for the home run crown. Seems to me this must be the date of the news clipping.

Of course this does not help you pin down the date of the photo. It does seem from Okkonen's database that the Red Sox roadies were lighter then gray in 1919 and lighter than they had been in the prior few seasons. Since the pinstripes in the photo are thinner, spread further and thus less noticeable from far away, perhaps photographic evidence used in Okkonnen's research did not pick them up. Finally, I see that the handwriting on the back of the photo states "Babe Ruth in L.A. (Los Angeles?, Louisiana?) Nov. 1, 1919". Maybe this was taken post-season at some barnstorming or other exhibition game.

Todd,

Thanks so much for chiming in, as well as looking into the matter.

I definitely find it odd that the papers would have used the image of Ruth in '21 for such an occasion, but I suppose it happened back then. Either way, I think you're definitely right about that May game, especially with it's relationship to Kelly's performance. I suppose that was the smoking gun that I was looking for.

The uniform stuff still bothers me, though. I did some research on the Conlon Collection website (https://www.theconloncollection.com/), and the few photos of Red Sox players from 1919 have similar unis to the Babe's, but their pinstripes are still pretty thin and close together. And, since Conlon never really took his photos in Boston (except for some World Series shots in 1912), I'm pretty sure that the depicted images are on the road.

So, is it possible that the image is still from 1919 on the road, and maybe Ruth just got a jersey from a different fabric or something? Or maybe it is a home uniform? I wish there was something that had ironclad provenance to go by, being that they're plenty of inconsistencies in Okkonen's work, the Conlon site, game-worn stuff in private collections, or now, even newspapers.

My head hurts.

Graig

Greg,

Some cursory research shows that Babe went on a West-Coast exhibition tour in November, 1919 which again is a date referenced on the back of the photo. He played with or against Buck Weaver in Sacramento that month, and may have appeared in San Francisco and Oxnard too. It would not be a stretch to find that he was in LA the first of that month. Possibly the photo comes from that tour, although I am not familiar with whether the players were allowed to wear their team's uniforms post-season and in the 20's they typically did not.

If the photo came from that tour it would have been an interesting time nonetheless. Playing with Weaver just weeks after the Black Sox series, having demanded a healthy pay bump and less than two months away from being traded to the Yankees by a failing Frazee, that would have made for a lot of hot stove talk at the time.

Thanks for the new photos Graig.

GVH is fantastic. Your brother is a lucky man. I will up Jay's offer to a toaster, a blender, as well as a set of china.

To me, the difference between a good fine artist and a not so good one is the formers' ability to capture weight. The weight in your GVH is spot on. Everything hangs like it should, face included. It's beautiful.

The painting is so true to the photo, so I can understand why you wouldn't, but did you ever have any thoughts about not painting in the stanchion at his left?

Todd, again, thank you so much for diving into this. Everything you have mentioned sounds pretty legit. I did read that he indeed made it to LA in the off-season for exhibition games (making $500 a day, plus expenses), as well as to play golf and appear in a few movies that never saw the light of day. I guess I'm gonna have to do a bit more research into his exhibition stuff, though the information can be sparse with casual searching sometimes. Maybe contacting the Boston Public Library would be the way to go. Either way, thank you so much for helping out!

martindl, I would break that china set in five seconds flat - I'm as graceful as a rock. But seriously, thank you very much for your compliments on GVH! I'm thrilled that you think I captured his weight. It's something that I strive for in addition to all of the stuff about light. Making these things have three-dimensionality is always a challenge on a two-dimensional surface.

Regarding the stanchion, you mean the one on the left of the canvas? I tried to plan the picture so that the pole didn't appear to hug the side of the piece, mainly because it can be a bit disorienting when you have two parallel lines so close to one another, especially vertical ones - they can create a lot of tension. But, it was still important for me to make a suggestion of it with the diagonal top. By leaving it in, I thought it created a nice echo to the gesture of GVH's collar. Also, having that little suggestion makes the ballpark 'real' to me - in other words, now I can say that the painting depicts GVH at the West Side Park in 1903, rather than having it at a more random place. In the end, it can certainly help me build a narrative around the painting whenever I can get it up on my website (which is woefully out of date). And looking at it that way, I guess you're right, I'm really just trying to stay accurate to what's there - and sometimes, that makes editing a bit tougher.

...or, did you mean the little window on the right of the canvas?

Hey Graig,
For an English guy you'd think my English would be better. I meant the stanchion to the right of his head (as we look at it). The one that blends with his cheek/moustache.

Again, it's beautiful. The character and determination in the pose is fantastic.

martindl, I totally see what you're saying - my mistake. I actually considered not putting in that little triangular spot, as it's possible that it can blend in a bit with his mouth area. In the end, since I wanted to try and keep it, I just made sure that the diagonal was less resolved than everything around it, so that hopefully it wouldn't seem awkward.

Does it bother you? It's totally cool if it does, too, I'd just like to know!

Thanks again,

Graig

Graig, the only thing I find bothersome about the GVH is that I can't own it.

No, the stanchion doesn't bother me at all, it just looked like a detail that an artist might consider leaving out due to the perspective.

Take care
Martin

Thanks for the feedback, Martin. I really appreciate it. And, I'm really thrilled that you like the painting. It's nice to know that it could prompt some love even though it's not one of the 'sexy' names in the sport.

Graig

Hey all,

So, this is gonna be a weird post coming from me, and if it rubs anyone the wrong way (including you, Leon), then I apologize and feel free to banish it to the forbidden closet of mysteries.

Starting on November 14, SCP's Fall 2012 auction will be open for bidding. In that group of wonderful pieces, one of my paintings is featured in lot #691. Here's the page:

http://catalog.scpauctions.com/LotDe...RAIG-KREINDLER

Anywho, the painting was put into the ring by one of our clients, a move that was/is in no way associated with us (my agent and myself). It was something that I imagined could happen at some point, and frankly still elicits some mixed feelings on my end. But that's neither here nor there.

Regardless, I have absolutely NO idea what the painting will go for in the end, or whether there's a reserve or anything like that. But, at a starting bid of $300, and at that size (34" x 22"), I thought it might be a nice opportunity for any of you who may have an interest in my work or DiMaggio specifically.

For those of you who are indeed interested in bidding, I can provide you with the retail value of the painting, if you'd like . The only reason I'm alright in doing so is because my paintings - when they come from us - are always priced out by size, not by player. So in other words, a 16" x 20" of Billy Martin will cost the same as a 16" x 20" of Babe Ruth.

Anywho, again, if this post seems off or even uncalled for, I apologize.

If you have any questions about the painting that don't involve the auction process, feel free to contact me!

Thanks,

Graig

I am sure that opening bid will skyrocket up but I will certainly throw a bid in. At that low opening bid, I can at least dream of owning one of your paintings, right?

Andrew,

I actually think that the price could stay pretty low, as artwork doesn't really seem to go all that high in memorabilia auctions, unless your name is Neiman, or if you've created an incredibly recognizable piece (like Ron Lewis' 500 homer club painting, or Harvey Dinnerstein's painting of DiMaggio). I think that's why it was pretty important for me to mention that the prices for my stuff, when they're dictated by us, are only relative to the size of the canvas.

I guess time will tell - all it takes is at least two passionate people, right?

Graig

Man...I wonder what that consigner was thinking. Someone might get a chance to steal one of your masterpieces. But,you never know GRaig...it could skyrocket and realize a huge much deserved price. Either way, fact that you are 2 to 3 years out with your current prices should tell you they are more than reasonable. That DiMaggio is truly a great piece. This would allow a buyer to acquire a masterpiece without the wait. Let's hope there are some DiMaggio fans out there with taste that happen to see the auction!

It's a beautiful piece and captures the moment and the timeframe so perfectly.

I mean this as no disrespect, but generally images of 'sexy' names leaves me cold. Your work on these subjects is great obviously, but, I just like art and technique and the subject is secondary. GVH just grabs at me. Pulls me in and makes me think.
Your Matty did the same but I have man-love for Matty, so I think my bias clouds my perspective :)

Thanks a lot, guys. I hope you're both right.

Martin, I'm definitely with you. I'll always prefer a great painting of a cool looking player rather than a so-so painting of a legend. I still think thew Tommy Henrichs, Carl Furillos, George Cases and Muddy Ruels are just as important as the Babe Ruths, Lou Gehrigs and Jackie Robinsons. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Regardless, I hope that at least someone likes the DiMaggio enough to bid on it...

Graig

Well... I think a few people liked your painting well enough to bid on it... :)

Stlcardinalsfan, thank the heavens someone did. There was some serious nail-biting going on for the duration of the auction. I'm happy with the result to an extent, but in actuality, they're still just a lot of mixed emotions.

Anywho, here are two more scans I got back today of finished works.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...Young_1903.jpg
Cy Young, 1903, 20" x 24"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...5_Conlon-1.jpg
Babe Ruth, April 23, 1935, 16" x 20"

I have a good number of paintings that I need to get to my photographers soon, but I'm waiting to finish this one painting I'm working on now, which happens to be bigger than I am. Not that most things aren't. But yeah, once it's done, I can get it all in a van and take care of it at once. I just hope it happens soon!

Soooo, I hope you guys dig these two for now. I've always loved both of the images, especially the Cy Young. I feel like you don't get to see a large amount of images of him with Boston from that period. It's amazing to think that during this particular year (1903), he was 36 and STILL went 28-9. Not bad.

The Ruth is pretty cool too in that it was his first return to New York since the Yankees had let him go. It must have been awfully weird to play in the Polo Grounds as a visitor for a National League team. Weirdness.

As per usual, any comments/critiques/declarations of hatred are always appreciated.

Thanks for stopping by!

Graig

Killer Cy!
 

I agree. As famous as he is and as well known and major HOFer, you don't see as many images of him as the other big guys. Amazing image. Once again, your attention to detail really shows. The lines around his eyes and the string on the shirt are the two things that stand out to me. Beautiful!

Thanks so much, Jason!! I guess the lack of images can be due to a lot of things - probably the time period and youth of sports photography being the main culprit. Then again, maybe there's a lot if good stuff out there that just hasn't been discovered yet (I hope)!

Now, if we could just find some shots of him with the Cleveland Spiders in action!

Thanks for taking the time to comment - especially since it was so nice - I really appreciate it!

Graig

Both paintings are spectacular!
 

Hi Graig,
Congrats! Both of these paintings are really terrific. :)

Interestingly enough, as I'm looking at your awesome painting of Cy, I'm currently greading a great biography on Cy Young by Reed Browning.

How weird is that!

The life you breathe into these players who we only know from inert, vintage b&w photographs is simply amazing!!!

LOL...So much for getting a Kreindler on the cheap!

The new paintings are once again.....unbelievable!

Hey all!!

Just wanted to reach out and wish everyone a very Happy Holidays. I also realized that I hadn't responded to your wonderful comments on the last two paintings - sorry about that!!

Things in the studio have been pretty darn crazy, as I've been working on this guy:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psa66018a8.jpg

It's big - 48" x 84". Those of you who know me personally can attest that it's about 5 times my size. And, it's almost there. Some lines do need to be sweetened and straightened, and they're a couple of minor details here and there. But man, I'm gonna be thrilled to get this thing out of my studio. It's really only big enough for one of us.

Anywho, hopefully everyone's keeping warm, are with friends and family, and will be opening up some nice packages with want-list items therein.

As per usual, thank you SO much for all of your support and love.

Graig

good lord man! before long youll be painting buildings! Hope your not scared of heights!

Attachment 81708

Sean,

Heights + Graig = FAIL.

I'm not a fan. Well, I mean, if I'm in a building or something, I'm fine. But if I were up there like the Men at Lunch photo, I wouldn't be a happy camper.

Since I'm short, I guess I just have a low center of gravity?

Graig