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

[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.

[Runscott]

.....

duplicate

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

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.

This image didn't exist until you located it.

Thanks for posting this thread - very informative and I think it gave a lot of people some additional insight into the 'photo to card' process.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

This image didn't exist until you located it.

Thanks for posting this thread - very informative and I think it gave a lot of people some additional insight into the 'photo to card' process.

Or.... the image simply doesn't exist nor has it ever which is a distinct possibility.

[Runscott]

edited

Sorry, I get caught up in logic and this is about emotion.

Congratulations once again on your find - it really is 'close enough', regardless.