Fun with Flexichrome-1952 Topps Baseball
 

Hello All! I have put both oars in the water on a cool project. As many know, 1952 Topps cards can be mesmerizing to look at. There's a vibe that is so alluring.
1952 Topps may be the first card set to use the Flexichrome process, along with some airbrushing.
1953s were printed from actual paintings, but the rest of the pre-57 sets were actual photos that were colorized and then RECOLORED with a process called Flexichrome. I got my hands on this and it's easier than photoshop but waaaay more expensive.
The results, however, are astounding. It's literally like making authentic 1952s in my workroom. I touched on the process in the Elston Howard thread, but figured I'd open up a thread so we can share knowledge and ideas.
I'll post some art tomorrow.

Here's the painted Nolan Ryan. The gloss application is too clumpy--but when I figure that out, these will look fantastic. Only downsides are cost and mess!

The Palmer was different. I used a 35mm color slide...then went backwards by making a monochromatic version with pumped up RGB profile to define areas to paint. It printed beautifully.

Bobby Thomson

Flexichrome

I had the manual at one point but donated it to the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. I posted about some of the contents awhile back, what I scanned shows all the steps, might be of use:

https://www.thetoppsarchives.com/201...rome-away.html

UPDATE- saw it ref'd in the Elston thread. Your efforts look superb.

Wow.

Really nice. Love the Palmer especially

Thank you, guys!!!
Here's the Reggie...I had to go backwards on this one, too. I purchased a Topps negative a few years back. When I made the monochrome and adjusted the RGB profiles, Reggie looked like a tan white guy...I had to start over...
When this photo was taken, I believed Reggie Jackson was practically a superhero!

Steve Garvey...with the Brooklyn Dodgers (I just couldn't resist this one...)

I reworked the Drysdales. Two of my favorite "moderns" in my set. Here's the portrait...

Awesome!

How about a Musial?

Wow! Those are amazing! You'da thought they were part of the original set.

I like what you've done with the team logos also. The Reggie Yankees logo looks original. I think the Mets logo on Ryan shows a bit too much detail - you should blur it up a bit.

And if you could add the shadow of the 'B' on Drysdale's cap to Garvey's cap, that would give it much more depth.

So cool, and so beyond my skill set, I feel bad even offering any feedback.

Not at all! I actually agree completely. The "B" was air brushed (like a 70's card). As for the Mets logo...believe it or not...I actually painted one up and let if "unclean" and it STILL looks too crisp!!! Here's the logo zoomed in on...

LolThose are beautiful. I have a couple of slides shot by SI photographer James Drake that would look great as a 1952 Topps. Do you accept commisions?

I do. Message me, please.
Thank you!

Hi Phil,

Your work looks fantastic. I bid on a Brooks Robinson 1958 Flexichrome years ago in an auction, but didn't go that high on my bid since this particular card isn't my favorite. The Flexichrome did look better than the final card; they should have used it as is.

Keep up the good work. I especially like the Palmer with the exception on maybe going a little to "red lipstick" on the lips :eek:

These are pretty cool! And the link you posted elsewhere on the Flexichromes was super interesting. Reminds me of the time when I learned photography from my dad who built a dark room in our basement (both houses now that I think about it). Good times aside from the smell of the chemicals which probably was not good for a 12-13 year old or adults for that matter.

Mark,
Thank you! The lipstick is intentional, of course. I wanted it to pop big time! I have updated the Brooks. I went back to the drawing board....literally...and now have a flexichrome '52 for him as well...
They don't look too different, actually. I do prefer the Flexichrome version, however. I gave it a more traditional crop, slightly widened the borders and evened the skin tone. I also went with a Mid Century Gothic font that topps used on some cards. The '52 set used 11 different fonts! Crazy details.

Here are some of my favorite Red Sox...quite a few more of these coming as I can't seem to get enough of those...
Mark, you can see I'm not picking on Jim Palmer...Jackie got the lipstick treatment, too! Lol

Awesome work!
 

That Williams is INSANE! Love the Garvey and Palmer as well!

Thank you so much! The regular issue Williams sold on eBay last week. I've never sold the flexichrome version to date. I'm experimenting with glosses.
Nothing I can find to match the original. Wax looks pretty good but there's an aquos coating that may be the trick.

Someone asked for Musial...I've updated both Banty Red Musials in our '52 set to Flexichrome...

Interesting thread. What's the difference between Kodachrome, Flexichrome and monochrome? :confused::confused:

Hello!
Kodachrome is a type of color film that was in use from 1936-2009 and, recently, the final destination that processed it closed down for good. The '53 Bowmans were Kodachrome. The warm browns and reddish tones made Kodachrome a favorite for a long time. It was expensive to work with and process but the results were satisfying. You can mimic Kodachrome in photoshop--among other programs--by creating or plugging in filters. I have done this in making many of my Banty Red source files. Basically, digital killed Kodachrome. It is still my personal favorite.

Monochrome refers to "one color" or black & white. To make my cards, I typically turn ANY image into monochrome and then use filters in photoshop RGB (Red, Green, Blue) to lighten or darken the exposure in various spots.

Flexichrome Is quite involved. Basically, it is a colorization method used by Topps in the 1950's and early 60's (used quite a bit on Hockey & Football). You can still purchase kits on eBay and you can Google the kits and find sellers. You basically paint onto an image of the negative that you would have transferred to Kodak paper. 1952 Topps was the first set to utilize the method. Many times, the colors look a bit cartoonish. The glossing they used muted them quite a bit as did the stock which was more cream than white. Still, the beauty of '52 Topps is all about Flexichrome.
I haven't gotten really good with it yet. Each image takes me a couple of hours--just for the art-- and with my set at nearly 500 cards, I don't see me offering the whole set in Flexichrome. Still, I have done 80 of them since Christmas...time sure adds up!

Here is an example of the difference between photo colorization with regular brushes and flexichrome process on my 1952 Satchel Paige and HI # Ted Williams. It's a pretty dramatic difference...

Here's Satchel. I like 'em both. The one I painted in photoshop was haunting in the eyes. The Flexichrome looks like it was pulled from a pack in the summer of 1952! A halftone filter is added before these are printed so the actual cards present startlingly authentic. Of course Banty Reds are always dated or have a markedly different reverse than original vintage cards, and the gloss I apply is fresh. There's no way to "age" gloss, Lol.

Those are outstanding.

Thank you so much!
The Flexichrome style is in all of my 50's sets now...
The Mantle is part of "The Mantle Set". This particular card will be on eBay next week. The Musial will appear sometime in May.
I'll try to get a handful more '52 up soon...

Not sure if it's practical to do too many commons but it's just so fun to do!

Thanks for taking the time to explain these things to me.

When you look at the whole card-making process, there are a lot of things that you can learn about very quickly. However, the one area which is very difficult to understand is the artwork, and of course, how it was transferred to stone or zinc or whatever. :)

Now according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Leaf Gum Co. used Chromolithography to make their cards in the 1940s. I find that a little bit odd because the baseball cards from the 1800s were made using this technique. I would've thought that by the late 1940s, Leaf Gum Co. would've used a different type of technology. What are your thoughts on this?

So, the 53' Bowmans (football and baseball) are the only cards that feature Kodachrome photographs? No other set has ever done this? What about the sets Bowman put out in 1950, 1951 and 1952? Are these Flexichrome? They obviously don't look like the cards from 1953, and I don't think they look as nice as the 52' Topps cards either. It's all very confusing!

Those are really cool Phil. Nice work!

Great stuff!!

I hope you make it to the 1956 set. Turning some of the posed shots to action shots would be a cool upgrade.

Aaron needs a version where it is him, not Mays . . .

Sadly, I onlty research what pertains to my card production. However, the early bowmans were drawings/paintings. In '53 they went to photos. They ran out of money halfway through and did the rest of the set in black and white. They went back to flexichrome in '54 but did it poorly, in my opinion. They were obviously on a tight budget. They tried touching up photos lightly in '55 and then Topps bought 'em out. The pre-1900 cards were actual photographs! They are some of the earliest compilations of original snapshots. Very cool. Chromatography/lithography pre-dated Flexichrome by a bit but basically it was a flatter colorization technique. It didn't involve creating acidic relief (not sure on that term) but it produces shading in my work. Looking at a leaf card, you can see how the color is like...dropped in. No gradient or toning.
I have always wondered what Mr. Bowman would have done with more money and had he continued his "Play Ball" series as a premium product.

That led me to create my favorite set to date. The "never released" 1952 Play Ball set. Like Topps, mine is oversized and exploding with color and a huge departure from the company norm...
I'll post a few here that you may enjoy!

Thank you. Yes, Hank should have a really cool one.

Here are a couple of listings of our '52 Play Balls that ended tonight and some that are up this week...I put the listings so you can see the reverses ( reverse scans, I delete after I list them to save room)...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/313049183621

https://www.ebay.com/itm/313049246900

https://www.ebay.com/itm/313049247324

There 130 cards in the set...I will enhance the Flexichrome in this set, but don't want to disturb the backgrouds. It's all trial and error.

And, before signing off to what hopes to be a fine night's sleep, today's new editions...I was going for a '52 Billy Martin vibe on the Randolph but it was awfully tough without blatantly ripping it off, Lol

WOW! I prefer them BOTH...:D

Those are really nice.

Being a 52 Topps collector, I enjoyed viewing those a lot!

Great job, Phil. :)

Thank you, ALL!
If it's cool with you guys, I'll post a few each week as they come out. Today was just one card. I licensed this image today as I didn't have a Maris in pins I hadn't used yet that would look good as a '52.

And for our rookie card purists...

Today's Addition is an upgrade for card #16-- Dodgers oddball hurler Billy Loes

...and '52 Play Ball #69, also, Billy Loes
You can probably see the difference in the painting of the images. The Play Ball was done in paint shop with what's known as an "alien skin" filter. The Topps was done with Flexichrome. Good opportunity to see the differences.

Truth be told--there's a big difference between graphics on the computer and a finalized card. Flexichrome gives me more control, but sometimes that's a bad thing, Lol. I was very happy with the Maris cards...but when I printed them to the vintage stock and applied gloss...holy smokes! I have made thousands of cards. I probably really like 75% of them and love only 5%. I love these. The New York one makes me laugh for some reason. Is it his face? Does he look like a dope? Innocent? Whatever it is, I chuckle or smile every time.

Dale,
As a fellow collector of 52's, what draws you to them? Aside from the obvious reason they were Topps first major set and groundbreaking, is there something else about them?
I thought you might appreciate some of the production detail I'm working on.
You may or may not know that I use vintage substrates on my cards. There is a texture to it that is unique and 1952 Topps cards are exactly the same.
I hand gloss each card and when I do, the color tones just fall into place and you can see the actual surfaces. It tones the cards down and makes them "warm"... Anyway, this is one of the traits that draws me to this set. The sometimes crude production or slipping print plates makes it challenging and gives 52's that "hand-made" feel as well.
Anyway, I took a photo of a Mattingly and tried to show the surface texture.
There just are not that many people that might share the enthusiasm for details like another '52 collector...

Phil, unlike most others likely, my love for them came when my father gifted me 148 of them over 30 yrs ago.
As a kid, being a CDN, I only collected hockey cards and stuck with those until I lost interest, likely just before becoming a teenager?

When my father gave those to me, the card hobby was exploding, which rekindled my desire to collect again, somewhat.
I knew nothing of the 52 Topps cards at that time but I obviously looked into them to learn as much as I could.
Being the age I was with life changes happening so fast, I didn't do much with them other than put them in top loaders and put them in a large cardboard box.
My father and I went to a couple shows, I purchased the odd one here and there, etc, but then the hobby collapsed due to the junk card influx, and that was pretty much it until around late 2015/2016 when I dug back in and found this site.
Since 2016, I was aggressively buying them like they were going out of style in an attempt to maybe finish the set before my father moved on, but, like anything, due to various reasons, I have slowed significantly for the last 6 months or longer and now just mainly collect hockey cards again when time and money permits.

Of course 52 Topps will always be my favorite baseball set due to the family connection so I have not quit collecting them entirely, but even outside of that, I honestly think, due to the history around them, etc, they would likely be regardless?

Man, I love looking at 'em. That's quite a compilation you've got going there!!!
Thank you for sharing. That's amazing that your Dad had them. My Dad never collected a single card. I was definitely on my own there, Lol.

Yes, nice pic Dale!

Really impressive seeing them all together like that.

New this weekend. The Rice negative was so clean, it was actually the easiest to paint so far....Dwight Evans, Jim Lonborg and Fred Lynn are in the works for this week...
BTW, has anyone ever seen Joe Pesci and Frank Malzone in the same room--at the same time?

Thanks guys! :)

A little tidbit you guys don't likely know is, my Uncle had some, including an Eddie Mathews card, but sold them at a pawn shop years ago for likely peanuts.
I had told him at the time to please let me know if he was ever going to sell them but I guess, for whatever reasons only he can answer, he decided against that?
At that time I had no idea how rare and how valuable the Mathews card was so I, regretfully, didn't push the issue. :(

I think about it once in a while but it only upsets me so I just try to think about what I own and how lucky I am to have those, especially my Mantle.