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

Graig, that's amazing!
So much content to absorb & admire.
Can't wait to see what you have in store for the new year.

I think I just awoke from a daydream. I was scrolling down this thread...and then I saw the Lou Gehrig Day piece. I'm not sure how long I was lost in the detail of it. My eyes kept returning to the reflections on the trophies. I had to keep reminding myself that I was viewing a painting. Absolutely stunning Graig! I'd like to see the setting into which this one will be placed.

Thanks so much Jay - I hope whatever's in store is a good thing!!

Curt, that's incredibly nice of you to say. Thank you so much! I'm wondering where the Gehrig is gonna be hung myself. It actually wasn't a commission or anything, as my agent wanted it done on spec. No matter where it hangs, I just hope that in the end, it looks the way it should. Which I guess is really up to me. Right now, I won't lie, I just want the thing out of my apartment - it's beyond huge!!

Graig

Graig,
You are living proof that there is a "Higher Power". You have such an amazing gift.

Truly stunning.

Whoa, Steve. Thank you. For serious.

If you need to get rid of it I would be more than happy to provide it a good home. :)

Your work is beyond belief!!

Graig, I think you are actually getting better (which I thought would be impossible). A lot of the paintings you see of vintage players, just don't quite capture the 'person'. That photo of Ruth shows the same magic that guys like Conlon and Burke possessed - you don't see it often in painters.

Thanks a lot, Andrew. If I can't get rid of it, I'll send it right over! :)

Scott, I really appreciate that sentiment. With every single painting, I really do try to make it better than the last. Most times, I don't know how and even then, it can be intangible stuff. But it really is one of the most important things in the world to me when it comes to my work. So, if you think that I've gotten better over the years, for serious, thank you for saying so.

Graig

Graig,
It's been a while since we spoke, but you have been one busy beaver!

I like the Ruth, but am blown away by the Young and the Gehrig retirement day paintings.

I must echo Scott, in that you are getting better. I don't know how or why specifically, but you just crank out one masterpiece after another. It has been, and will continue to be, my honor to know you and to watch your evolution and growth.

Just WOW!

Have great holidays and a fantastic new year.
Best,
Mark

Well said Steve :)

Graig, these are amazing! Very Very impressive.

Graig- truly amazing work, so much depth & emotion captured.

Question- why do you have such "mixed emotions" about your work hitting the auction block? to me, it's an amazing nod to your talent, and very thrilling to see during your lifetime...most artists don't see their work go to auction while their alive. enjoy it, embrace it, savor it.

Best-
Michael

Hey guys,

Thanks so much for the wonderful compliments - I truly appreciate all of them.

Mark, I think the Young is something special, and not necessarily because of how it's painted, but man, those eyes. The photographer really captured something special. But either way, I'm thrilled that you think I've gotten better. That's really what I strive for the most!

Michael, the mixed emotions really stem from the fact that an auction can kind of be a free-for-all. Which I guess is also why I like buying items from them - you can get some really wonderful deals on unique items from time to time. Believe me, the fact that the price of the DiMaggio painting was what it was absolutely THRILLED me. But, had it sold for much less, I definitely would have been a little upset. Even if that meant that someone got a good deal on something they might not have been able to get otherwise. In the end, I just don't want those auction numbers to negatively effect the retail prices that my agent charges. And I know it's the secondary market and all, so it probably shouldn't, but for some reason I feel like it might matter in the end. And believe me, I cringed while writing those last sentences - I sound like an @$$ caring about what prices of these things should be. But, I guess since it's my livelihood, it's something that deserves to be addressed.

And then on the other side of the coin, if the realized prices are higher than retail, then other clients might want to put their paintings up for auction too, in the hopes that they can make more money. Of course, they're VERY much in the right to do so. If they had purchased the painting, they're certainly allowed to sell it if/when they want/need to. I have to be at peace with the fact that the paintings can be looked at as an investment, if not something to enjoy.

Honestly, I know it sounds kind of weird, but maybe I'm just sad to see my work in an auction because it makes me think the original owner didn't want it anymore - maybe he/she just didn't enjoy it as much as before? And again, that's totally cool, I know it can happen. But I guess since each painting is kind of like a child to me, I can really get sensitive. And, I'm also terribly neurotic (I'm trying my best to embody every stereotype of my fellow Jews).

But regardless, I should stop complaining. I'm really honored that people like what I do enough to actually want to buy it. Especially since a painting is never something that somebody NEEDS. The fact that someone can enjoy my work and want to spend time with it is really all I can ask for.

Sorry if this response is all over the place, or sounds even remotely mean spirited.

Graig

I just spit coca-cola all over my desk. Thanks a lot.

,

Mannn, now I want some matzoh ball soup. Oh wait, I always do.

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with caring how much others value your work. You put a lot into each painting, so it's only natural. Just think of the inevitable auctions of your work like the "performance evaluations" so many others have to face in their regular jobs. Nobody likes them, but it feels good when you come through with all top marks, especially when it validates your efforts and may even justify a pay raise.

And if you don't get all top marks, well screw 'em, they clearly don't know what they're talking about!! :p

Koufax Artwork
 

Great artwork ! You have a real gift. Do you happen to have any Sandy Koufax pieces for sale? Thanks, Phil

Thanks so much, Phil!

I do have this Koufax from '65 that's currently at my photographer's:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psb440ca34.jpg

My photo isn't great, but hopefully it gives you an idea. It is still available if you're interested.

Thanks,

Graig

Wow, Graig! Your new Sandy is amazing!
He just pops off the canvas and it really catches him in a great somber moment.
Love the Dodger blue!

That Koufax is amazing for so many reasons, but to me what stands out is the composition. It is such an unusual 'pose' for a baseball player portrait and, once again, your efforts in that regard really breathe life into the subject. Awesome!!!

Graig, that Koufax is sweet. Great job!

Thank you, thank you, thank you for all of your kind words everyone! It really was a pretty nice moment to capture of Sandy - he comes across as being a bit introspective here. But, I think a lot of the credit needs to go to the photographer - he's the one who really nailed it!! I guess the subject rocks pretty hard, too.

Graig

Hey all,

So, the past few months have been pretty hard. I've been very busy with work (which I'm incredibly thankful for), and I've also been very busy with upcoming wedding stuff (which I'm also incredibly thankful for). I feel like my head's been getting knocked back and forth like a ping pong, and quite frankly, I really hope that the quality of my work hasn't suffered as a result.

As it stands, the paintings I'm about to show have been worked on, tweaked, worked on again, sanded down, tweaked, and finally worked on again. It's been quite an arduous journey, and after I dropped them off at my photographers last week, I breathed a sigh of relief - I just needed to get these things out of my sight.

So, my guys got these scans back to me today, and I'm still in the process of color correcting everything. They're not quite perfect, but I still wanted to share them. For whatever reason, Photobucket seems to be screwing with the colors and contrast more than it should, but hopefully they give ya a good idea.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps92249d1a.jpg
Sandy Koufax, 1965, 9" x 12"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps46257057.jpg
Paul Waner, 1942, 9" x 12"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps7c9622d8.jpg
Christy Mathewson, 1909, 9" x 12"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps0268cf2f.jpg
Babe Ruth, 1919, 16" x 20"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps17123f2f.jpg
Babe Ruth, 1932, 36" x 53"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psa5c701f6.jpg
Lou Gehrig, July 4, 1939, 48" x 84"

That last Gehrig painting was probably the most insane thing I've ever worked on, and certainly as of now, the largest. I think my hair's gone quite gray because of it.

Comments and critiques are ALWAYS appreciated, even if they're bad and smelly!!

Hope everyone's keeping warm.

Graig

Graig, I will state the obvious and say that your paintings are absolutely amazing! I have viewed this thread several times and get excited each time I see your new works...spectacular! I have always preferred larger works of art such as these ones although I don't have any of my own other than some great 19th century prints and woodcuts.

Out of curiosity, have you done any paintings of 19th century players or teams? I have a great one in mind when I have the funds ;) Good luck with wedding planning!

Amazing!!!!!!!!
 

Graig, I have stated before and will again, you are an AMAZING artist! The realism you bring to the human form ranks just this side of Rembrandt himself. I know that's a pretty lofty statement but I truly believe it to be so. Both artists display a immeasurable talent for bringing a deep richness of humanity to your subject. Almost photographic in quality, yet still grasping an artistic flair that a photo is not capable of. Absolutely beautiful and breathtaking with every example. We are all the better for being able to enjoy your work. Bravo!
Hope that's not too gushy!:D

the Cobb in this months Legendary Auction is great! wish I had it to get it

I just got my catalogue today.. so cool. I wish I had that coin too. I am lucky to have what I have. Your work is simply the best. The Cobb is just beautiful Graig.. truly the class of the catalogue. You're the man.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...-Cobb-%22Navin

Incredible work. I'm just taken by the images and need a few minutes to scan and ruminate on each one. That's what art is about for me, just taking the time and appreciating the nuances. Wow. Thanks for posting. Incredible sadness in Waner's eyes.

Had the pleasure of meeting Graig in Baltimore at the National last summer. He is a cool young dude. If I had his skills I'd be painting naked chicks, just saying, but let us be grateful that Graig is devoted to honoring our beloved National Game. Having hung out with the artist, and being able to call him a friend, adds an immeasurable provenance to the artwork which graces my Fortress of Solitude. I am lucky as Hell. He'll get all kine bashful and self-effacing when you compliment him thusly but someday, mark my words, Cooperstown will honor the lad.

http://photos.imageevent.com/kawika_.../DSC047161.JPG

Breathtaking. I can't find the words to properly convey how amazing these works are. As an art major who now works in the world of retail distribution (for good reason!), I have such an appreciation for those who have honed their skills to level you have. Kreindler-Steele has a nice ring to it if you'd like to revive the series!

+1 I couldn't agree more, David! ;)

Guys, you're all being too kind. Thank you. :o

I'm really thrilled that so many of you have enjoyed this thread and always take time to comment and push me in good directions. I know I've said it before, and it certainly might sound corny, but whatever success I've had the past couple of years is directly because of you good folks. I honestly pinch myself every morning and thank the stars that I'm able to actually do this for a living - something I really love. And the fact that people like it as much as they do really warms my heart.

Regarding the Legendary auction, well, I'm definitely interested to see what the results are. Just like the DiMaggio painting in SCP, this one really surprised me. It's just really weird to see my stuff up for grabs like that. I didn't know until last night that I was on the cover. Wowzas. I just don't even know what to say.

In the end, I just hope that the seller still loved the painting and maybe had to get rid of it for other reasons. I know it's a bit silly, but when this stuff finds its way to the secondary market, I get a little upset because I start thinking that the client just fell out of love with the thing (or maybe never was IN love). But, that's all just me being neurotic.

Meeting David and Scott were some of my favorite parts of that weekend. I really was honored to spend so much time with Kawika, who as you all know, couldn't be a nicer fella. And the same goes for Scott, though I wish I could have spent more time with him. The National is just so much fun in general as a social event - it's honestly one of the highlights of my year. Going with good friends and just soaking in the passion that we all share, well, they're few things that are more enjoyable to me. Provided that I can make it, I'm VERY much looking forward to Chicago!!

Graig

I'll definitely be at the Chicago National, Graig.
I will make it a point to hang out with you this year and get caught up. ;)

I too will be at the National this year as it is practically in my back yard. I am hoping you make it Graig as I would like the pleasure of meeting my favorite artist!

:)

Oh, and George, I'm sorry - I totally forgot to answer your question!

I've only done a small handful of 19th century players, and a lot of them actually appear with their teams from the early 20th. Of that group, I do have a finished George Van Haltren, a finished Cy Young, a half-finished Ed Delahanty, and a bunch of others drawn out and ready to go, including: Bobby Wallace, Jesse Burkett, Sam Crawford, and Bobby Lowe. They're might be a few others too, but I can't quite think of them at the moment.

Here are scans of the two finished guys:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ltren_1903.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...Young_1903.jpg

If we're talkin' about players that were strictly 19th century, I only have one completed, and that's of Radbourn:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...87_Cabinet.jpg

But I also have some in-progress ones of Louis Sockalexis, JM Ward, Mike Kelly, Deacon White and Cap Anson.

Hopefully I'll be able to finish some of them soon...yikes.

Who did you have in mind specifically? Or is that a secret?

Graig

Very very nice Graig!! I don't ever recall seeing the Cy Young painting. Ever since picking up a few very difficult woodcuts of James Creighton I've thought about how wonderful it would be to have a painting of him. I believe that there are only 2 actual photos of him with one pose being the entire 1860 Brooklyn Excelsiors team for which the woodcut was created.

Thanks a lot, George!

Creighton would most certainly be an awesome challenge to undertake. I mean, sometimes one can get pretty lucky with those 19th century guys and their studio portraits, but as I'm sure you can imagine, the further back you go, the less and less easy it becomes. But, that's also part of the fun!!

:)

Graig

What an absolutely gorgeous painting - I was out of the running before it started, but I hope you got what you were looking for (I have no feel for prices on this sort of thing): http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=155158

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Ite...55158a_lg.jpeg

Hey Scott,

Thanks for the well-wishes. I'm still really torn about how I feel with the results of this auction. The piece was put up by one of our clients, and in his particular case, wasn't something that we necessarily encouraged. Like I mentioned a few months ago too, it just seems really weird to me when I see my paintings up for auction in any format.

However, I hope that in the end, whoever bought it loves it once it's in hand!

Graig