1939 Play Ball Color "Proof"

[Leon]

I am still not certain what it is but it's really cool looking. Thanks for sharing and tell the other person thanks too. Much appreciated.

[Matthew H]

I think it's interesting that Gum Inc may have attempted to colorize their photos two years in a row and scrapped the idea both times.

One thing that they have going is that they really do seem to be two different attempts, as they look different enough from each other. If the coloring process looked the same both years it would be much more suspect to me.

The color on the '39 looks better then any of the '40s you've posted before. So, there is a possible scenario that they were testing different processes long before they (Bowman) produced the first full color photo baseball cards in 1953.

[toppcat]

These remind me a bit of the Topps in house creations used to pitch new sets to the brass by the Creative Department. Topps would take an existing card sometimes and then add elements to it to give a rough approximation of what the proposed set would look like. I could see Gum Inc taking finished cards and overprinting them with color highlights to come up with the examples shown above.

Too bad they never issued a set like either of these. I assume the combined cost of photography and color was too expensive, hence the color illustrations used in 1941.

[steve B]

It's so tough to tell from scans.

I will say that it's quite possible to paint that accurately with a brush even on a card.

But also that it takes some real talent, to the point that if I found a card like that priced low enough for me I'd buy it as a work of art.

The 39 seems more likely painted, there are a few little bits that look hand done. The 40 is really hard to tell, either printed or done by someone very skilled.

A few pics of handcolored postcards from the 30's are here
http://www.tuftsarchives.org/pinehur...red-postcards/

And from Ebay
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pinehurst-NC..._qi=RTM1062687

Pretty spectacular, most aren't quite that good.

Steve B