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

[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

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,

What evidence?? I don't need pats on the back buddy.. but I do like to share things I own and see other's items. Encouragement is important in any hobby. I do think you need some hugs though. Regarding leaving for good. PLEASE don't make promises you will not follow through with. At least wait more than 24 hrs. deal?

I guess you could always start a new dramatic thread titled "Baseball card art/photo:gehrig 34 goudey or not gehrig 34 goudey.that is the question PART 2".

Oh RUNSCOTT......

[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?