What was up with '41 Play Ball backgrounds?

[scmavl]

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



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

[Jay Wolt]

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

[Big Ben]

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)

[williamcohon]

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.

[Chris Counts]

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 ...

[tjb1952tjb]

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