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

[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.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm trying to work with your logic.

So...using your logic, until I showed the '37 Wide Pen image of Hubbell, that photograph didn't exist either, which proved that the photo shown by Graig, which was very similar to the '34 Hubbell card, was the one used to create the Hubbell '34 Goudey?

I think I'm finally beginning to understand this: whichever known photo looks the most like a card, is the one that was used to create the card. As closer matches are found, the actual photo used to create a card 75 years ago....changes? I feel like I'm in an Oliver Stone movie.

Nope.. that is not what I am saying at all. Good God man... what is wrong with you? I know where you stand, which is different that the majority who voted so far. You will never follow any logical person's thoughts which is clear. Please... go find another thread to cause drama as you certainly enjoy it. If I am like walking on eggshells talking to, why comment at all and why continue? Why send me pm out of the blue to provoke me by talking trash about Henry Yee(who I respect and so do many others). Why call me a hater on a thread yesterday for no reason and then apologize. Why tell me to go talk about my photos.. but without you, then start right in the very next day? Scott, Please... LESS DRAMA. We all know how you voted. If my opinion is truly the only one that matters, then yours is no longer needed.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually.. I think you get caught up in emotion.. OVER... AND OVER.. AND OVER AGAIN. But thank you.. it is close enough for me and the majority so far because it is a logical explanation(on this card and image). Comparing the Gehrig to your images posted was not logical at all as it related to your argument. Graig actually supplied a better example. Your argument was that it was the same photo shoot yet you posted two images that were not the same photo shoot nor was your original photo close to the card IMO. That being said, you could be right but so could those who voted yes. Unless the artist documented this, we will never know unless a photo which is an exact match shows up. There could be one that is closer.. who knows.. but never an exact match IMO because of the light on face and different style hat. I also would think that the image would be published on such an important card. Again, I could be wrong. I appreciate differences of opinions(hence my poll), but I really do not know what your argument even is exactly Scott.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Actually.. I think you get caught up in emotion.. OVER... AND OVER.. AND OVER AGAIN. But thank you.. it is close enough for me and the majority so far because it is a logical explanation(on this card and image). Comparing the Gehrig to your images posted was not logical at all as it related to your argument. Graig actually supplied a better example. Your argument was that it was the same photo shoot yet you posted two images that were not the same photo shoot nor was your original photo close to the card IMO. That being said, you could be right but so could those who voted yes. Unless the artist documented this, we will never know unless a photo which is an exact match shows up. There could be one that is closer.. who knows.. but never an exact match IMO because of the light on face and different style hat. I also would think that the image would be published on such an important card. Again, I could be wrong. I appreciate differences of opinions(hence my poll), but I really do not know what your argument even is exactly Scott.

I'm going to ignore the baloney part of the above, and just respond to the part related to the card discussion. I'm also not going to dumb it down, as the others responding to my posts had no problem comprehending it.

For anyone else still reading - Ben is stuck on the lighting and the cap, not getting that if there is an 'exact match' photo, it would have had the same shadow and cap issue, and the artist STILL would have changed those items. These guys were not Graig Kindlers - you can tell as much by the crappy representation of Gehrig's face on that card. These artists didn't take a well-composed photo and try to improve on it by changing the player's physical orientation - at least we have no indication that they did, and it makes no sense, as composition was the photographer's job. This particular photo (Ben's) is very well-composed - no need to change anything from the forehead down, other than what made sense based on the move from b&w to color. The more I think through this, the more I am certain that Ben's photo was NOT used to create the Gehrig card.

I was actually hoping it WAS the card, but after the last few posts, I could care less. There you go, Ben - a little emotion for you

[Runscott]

One last thing before I exit this thread for good.

I considered not even posting that '37 Wide Pen - Ben was looking for pats on the back, not any evidence that he might be incorrect, and I have the utmost respect for Graig. It just seemed like it would be 'lying' to not show it, and I didn't think Graig would take it wrong, and he didn't (thanks).

Graig - I completely understand your thoughts about artistic license. I have some other thoughts about how the color Goudeys were actually created, which is why I'm pretty adamant about the 'exact photo' thing. I'll share those thoughts by PM or start another thread after this topic cools down.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm going to ignore the baloney part of the above, and just respond to the part related to the card discussion. I'm also not going to dumb it down, as the others responding to my posts had no problem comprehending it.

For anyone else still reading - Ben is stuck on the lighting and the cap, not getting that if there is an 'exact match' photo, it would have had the same shadow and cap issue, and the artist STILL would have changed those items. These guys were not Graig Kindlers - you can tell as much by the crappy representation of Gehrig's face on that card. These artists didn't take a well-composed photo and try to improve on it by changing the player's physical orientation - at least we have no indication that they did, and it makes no sense, as composition was the photographer's job. This particular photo (Ben's) is very well-composed - no need to change anything from the forehead down, other than what made sense based on the move from b&w to color. The more I think through this, the more I am certain that Ben's photo was NOT used to create the Gehrig card.

I was actually hoping it WAS the card, but after the last few posts, I could care less. There you go, Ben - a little emotion for you

No need to dumb it down smarty pants. I am not caught up on anything and you sure make a lot of assumptions about painters back then. You actually must know more about painting than.. well Graig.

Really?? You were hoping that it was the image?? Just for me??? That is so nice of you and makes perfect sense to everyone reading I am sure.

The reason why you didn't comment on the paragragh above, is because you have nothing to say to defend it. Baloney?? Are you you saying you didn't do/say these things?? Youare a trouble maker and all over the place. Correct me if I am wrong but you have been kicked off here before correct?
All over the place as you may be, you could be right as it relates to this photo. I just do not believe that you are.. that's all Scott. You ok?