Baseball card art/photo:gehrig 34 goudey or not gehrig 34 goudey.that is the question

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Same photo-shoot, different photo.

I would state the same even if it was my own photo - I've had several Reulbachs that were very close to the T206 card, and I really wish they were the original photo, but they are just very close. I have an entire file of 'close but no banana' T206 photos.

Here's a good example that I recently mentioned to Tim - I still need to provide him with the actual image used, which is pictured below. Sure, the artist could have used the top photo and come up with the one to the right of it, so without the existence of the bottom photo, we would never know for sure. Same goes for the Gehrig photo. Also, I realize that in the case of this particular card, it wasn't a matter of an artist painting the card image using the technique used for the Gehrig card, but you get my drift.

Ben, sorry about overreacting to your post the other day. Take that or not, but my comment is sincere.

If the differences are the result of a different photo from the same photo shoot then why change the style of the hat. Clearly he made artistic changes. I voted that the photo was used for the card. Great job picking up on it Ben. I don't think I would have noticed the match.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

If the differences are the result of a different photo from the same photo shoot then why change the style of the hat. Clearly he made artistic changes. I voted that the photo was used for the card. Great job picking up on it Ben. I don't think I would have noticed the match.

A difference in hat style doesn't validate the other differences. I still think it's from the same photo shoot.

Another way of trying to determine the likelihood that it's the original photo, would be to look at other original photos used by artists to create the '33 and '34 Goudeys. This would tell you how much artistic license they were likely to have taken.

I agree that it's a great pick-up.

[GKreindler]

I don't wanna create any waves or anything, but I just thought I'd put this out there as some food for thought. And in no way is this meant to attack anyone.

In that '33 Goudey set (as well many other period illustrated ones), you have a lot of examples of familiar photos being used for reference in the illustrations.

Check out these Ruth cards and photo:







I think it's fair to say that they're the same image. But they're still some minor differences here and there.

And on the other side of the spectrum are the illustrations that very much resemble certain photos, but have larger differences. The one that immediately comes to mind for me is the Hubbell from the same set (or even the one from the '34 issue):





I don't think the comparison is as obvious between the two, but I believe that the illustration was done from this photo. Obviously, the jersey's different and he's not wearing but holding his hat in the card, but still, they're too many things that make me think that it was just a liberty taken by the artist.

The gestures are pretty identical, especially in regard to his lean against the fence. Also, his right hand falls the same way in both images. His left hand, though hold the hat, still very much mimics the grip in the photo. The jersey, though without any lettering, has man of the same folds that are in the photo, and the collar/neck hole shape is exactly the same. The positioning of the belt buckle is the same. The faces (minus the hat) are incredibly similar.

So, I can look at that photo and say that in my own opinion, it was used to make the Goudey card. But of course, I could be wrong, and it's possible that another photo could surface that looks more like the image on the card. But unless one is found, then I wouldn't think otherwise.

The Elberfeld example that Runscott provided is an interesting one. In the one with Detroit jersey, they're a lot of similarities. But after seeing the shot of him with NY, I would definitely say that that one was what the artist had in hand. But what's to be said about the differences between his NY jersey in the studio photo and the one on the card? Obviously, a lot of t-206 artists took liberties in those jerseys, whether it came to collar folds or whatever was written across their chests. That was mostly done in order to be current with the correct teams the players were on, or just to make it obvious to the viewer who was on what team.

There's going to be some liberties taken in all of these illustrated cards, and I guess the more obvious the liberty, the more distant said illustration gets from said card muddies. In my eyes, that Gehrig card is an example of that. I think the biggest liberty was taken in his face. The lighting that's in that face has gotta be made up, as there was no way that the brim of that hat he's wearing in the card would cover that entire face in shadow, and then produce that depicted light pattern in his jersey. With that in mind, I'm pretty darn sure that a photo depicting that exact lighting condition doesn't exist. And of course, I could be wrong, too!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can't be 100% that any of these are from those exact photos. All we can do is use our eyes and make the most educated guess possible. Kinda like the autograph game. I guess to know for sure, we would have had to have seen the artist in the process of creating the illustration.

And now please excuse me while my head explodes.

Graig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

I don't think the comparison is as obvious between the two, but I believe that the illustration was done from this photo. Obviously, the jersey's different and he's not wearing but holding his hat in the card, but still, they're too many things that make me think that it was just a liberty taken by the artist.
....
Graig

Graig, I understand artistic creative changes, but I believe that for most of the '33 and '34 Goudeys, the artists didn't change face angle, bat positioning, etc, which would be indicated if the Gehrig photo in question were the one used for the '34 card. The Hubbell photo that you presented is a perfect example of how photos can look so similar that the slight differences would lead you to believe that the incorrect one was used to create a card.

Here's a 1937 Goudey Wide Pen photo card that was created from the same photo used for the '33 and '34 , and like the Gehrig, probably came from the same photo shoot. 'GIANTS' is not on the jersey - not sure if the '37 Wide Pens were altered a little for the card, but I'm guessing it was removed from the photo.

[Forever Young]

The fact that no one has been able to post a photo of the Gehrig image "from the same photo shoot" used for the Goudey card makes me agree with you Graig. Until one is shown, I would think that this would be considered the image. I also agree with you on the lighting of the face… no way that a photo from same shoot would have it. Drop the head down to fit on the card(like you did to get the hat in), it is almost identical. The subtle angle differences could easily have been done my artist. Although, there is an exact image of Hubble.. I get your point. The elberfield example given was completely different with little to no similarities(other than being the same person). I am not even convinced the two examples given are even from the same shoot.

Originally Posted by GKreindler

I don't wanna create any waves or anything, but I just thought I'd put this out there as some food for thought. And in no way is this meant to attack anyone.

In that '33 Goudey set (as well many other period illustrated ones), you have a lot of examples of familiar photos being used for reference in the illustrations.

Check out these Ruth cards and photo:







I think it's fair to say that they're the same image. But they're still some minor differences here and there.

And on the other side of the spectrum are the illustrations that very much resemble certain photos, but have larger differences. The one that immediately comes to mind for me is the Hubbell from the same set (or even the one from the '34 issue):





I don't think the comparison is as obvious between the two, but I believe that the illustration was done from this photo. Obviously, the jersey's different and he's not wearing but holding his hat in the card, but still, they're too many things that make me think that it was just a liberty taken by the artist.

The gestures are pretty identical, especially in regard to his lean against the fence. Also, his right hand falls the same way in both images. His left hand, though hold the hat, still very much mimics the grip in the photo. The jersey, though without any lettering, has man of the same folds that are in the photo, and the collar/neck hole shape is exactly the same. The positioning of the belt buckle is the same. The faces (minus the hat) are incredibly similar.

So, I can look at that photo and say that in my own opinion, it was used to make the Goudey card. But of course, I could be wrong, and it's possible that another photo could surface that looks more like the image on the card. But unless one is found, then I wouldn't think otherwise.

The Elberfeld example that Runscott provided is an interesting one. In the one with Detroit jersey, they're a lot of similarities. But after seeing the shot of him with NY, I would definitely say that that one was what the artist had in hand. But what's to be said about the differences between his NY jersey in the studio photo and the one on the card? Obviously, a lot of t-206 artists took liberties in those jerseys, whether it came to collar folds or whatever was written across their chests. That was mostly done in order to be current with the correct teams the players were on, or just to make it obvious to the viewer who was on what team.

There's going to be some liberties taken in all of these illustrated cards, and I guess the more obvious the liberty, the more distant said illustration gets from said card muddies. In my eyes, that Gehrig card is an example of that. I think the biggest liberty was taken in his face. The lighting that's in that face has gotta be made up, as there was no way that the brim of that hat he's wearing in the card would cover that entire face in shadow, and then produce that depicted light pattern in his jersey. With that in mind, I'm pretty darn sure that a photo depicting that exact lighting condition doesn't exist. And of course, I could be wrong, too!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can't be 100% that any of these are from those exact photos. All we can do is use our eyes and make the most educated guess possible. Kinda like the autograph game. I guess to know for sure, we would have had to have seen the artist in the process of creating the illustration.

And now please excuse me while my head explodes.

Graig

[GKreindler]

Hahaha! My hat tastes good.

And there you go - I stand corrected. I guess we can never be sure 100%. And man, sometimes that sucks.

Thanks for pointing this out Scott.

Graig

[Runscott]

Graig, it does suck. Given the fact that multiple photos, with slight variations, could have been taken at the same time as ANY photo actually used to produce a card, it's going to be tough to ever prove that any inexact ones were ever used. I do think it's cool the way Hubbell barely changed position, but the photographer had him move his hat, slightly tilt his head, and a few other slight variations. The fingers on his right hand are in almost the exact same position in both photos.

But the Gehrig certainly could be the right photo, and Ben thinks it is which is ultimately all that counts.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Graig, it does suck. Given the fact that multiple photos, with slight variations, could have been taken at the same time as ANY photo actually used to produce a card, it's going to be tough to ever prove that any inexact ones were ever used. I do think it's cool the way Hubbell barely changed position, but the photographer had him move his hat, slightly tilt his head, and a few other slight variations. The fingers on his right hand are in almost the exact same position in both photos.

But the Gehrig certainly could be the right photo, and Ben thinks it is which is ultimately all that counts.

I assume it is, like the majority of the people who voted, because there is no image to dispute otherwise and it is a reasonable assumption. If the image existed, obviously I would think differently. Thank you for your opinion. I would like to hear other's thoughts. Come one come all.