[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Thanks for the responses. I think I'm beginning to understand the differences between Flexichrome and painting, but it still seems a little subtle to my thick skull.

Let's say you're a Bowman artist in 1951. You take a black & white photo of Ted Williams and you get out your paint set and start filling in color on the photo with paints or whatever material you like. Then, your painting is in some fashion converted into a mass produced card. That seems simple and makes sense to me.

Now let's say you're a Topps artist in 1954. You take out your pigment kit, which sounds an aweful lot like a paint kit to me. Then you start filling in colors on a picture or maybe a negative of Ted Williams. If you use the picture, then I'm not sure I see the difference between Flexichromes and paintings, other than the fact that the pigments used are obviously more translucent than paint. If you place the pigments on the negative, then I'm starting to understand the difference.

Thanks again.