What was up with '41 Play Ball backgrounds?
 

Some of them look amazing (like the Moses and Gehringer below) but then, there are the others. What is going on with V. DiMaggio, Case, and Dahlgren? I mean, if all of the backgrounds were like that? Fine. But some are great looking ballfields while the others are the pastel, ummm... geometric messes.

Thoughts?

I love the cards either way, BTW

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1296875277

I hope Doug doesn't mind me using his scan.

....and don't forget the solid color backrounds

http://www.qualitycards.com/pictures/31807926.jpg

http://www.qualitycards.com/pictures/40496119.jpg

The 1941 Playball Gehringer is one of my all time favorite cards. I always thought that the background design on the 1933 Goudey Moe Berg was a little curious as well. (Image from google--not my card)

I think it has to do with the prevailing artistic sensibility. Seeing objects as geometric shapes is what the cubist painters were all about - think Cezanne or Picasso. And bold colored backgrounds that vie for attention with the subjects is common in modernist painting - think Matisse.

The Diamond Star set from 1934-6 had the same characteristics. There are wonderful ballpark and city backgrounds, and also non-referential geometric backgrounds. What appeals to me, though, is that I think there is a crossover. You can see the geometry in the pictorial backgrounds, and you can infer the 30's and 40's perspective on life from the non-pictorial shapes.

There is no doubt that the artists who created both the Diamond Stars and '41 Play Ball sets were influenced by the modern art of the 1930s. The craziest-looking backgrounds I've seen can be found in the Diamond Stars "extension" set. I'm not sure when it was issued — I've seen both 1981 and 1993 listed as dates. Larry Fritsch was always selling them ...

One of the 1937 Wheaties series also has similar backgrounds ...

Love the colors............
 

The colors are just one reason I collect '41 Play Ball........love 'em.