Fun with Flexichrome-1952 Topps Baseball

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Hi Phil,

Your work looks fantastic. I bid on a Brooks Robinson 1958 Flexichrome years ago in an auction, but didn't go that high on my bid since this particular card isn't my favorite. The Flexichrome did look better than the final card; they should have used it as is.

Keep up the good work. I especially like the Palmer with the exception on maybe going a little to "red lipstick" on the lips

Mark,
Thank you! The lipstick is intentional, of course. I wanted it to pop big time! I have updated the Brooks. I went back to the drawing board....literally...and now have a flexichrome '52 for him as well...
They don't look too different, actually. I do prefer the Flexichrome version, however. I gave it a more traditional crop, slightly widened the borders and evened the skin tone. I also went with a Mid Century Gothic font that topps used on some cards. The '52 set used 11 different fonts! Crazy details.

[Phil68]

Here are some of my favorite Red Sox...quite a few more of these coming as I can't seem to get enough of those...
Mark, you can see I'm not picking on Jim Palmer...Jackie got the lipstick treatment, too! Lol

[hcv123]

That Williams is INSANE! Love the Garvey and Palmer as well!

[Phil68]

Thank you so much! The regular issue Williams sold on eBay last week. I've never sold the flexichrome version to date. I'm experimenting with glosses.
Nothing I can find to match the original. Wax looks pretty good but there's an aquos coating that may be the trick.

Someone asked for Musial...I've updated both Banty Red Musials in our '52 set to Flexichrome...

[samosa4u]

Interesting thread. What's the difference between Kodachrome, Flexichrome and monochrome?

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Interesting thread. What's the difference between Kodachrome, Flexichrome and monochrome?

Hello!
Kodachrome is a type of color film that was in use from 1936-2009 and, recently, the final destination that processed it closed down for good. The '53 Bowmans were Kodachrome. The warm browns and reddish tones made Kodachrome a favorite for a long time. It was expensive to work with and process but the results were satisfying. You can mimic Kodachrome in photoshop--among other programs--by creating or plugging in filters. I have done this in making many of my Banty Red source files. Basically, digital killed Kodachrome. It is still my personal favorite.

Monochrome refers to "one color" or black & white. To make my cards, I typically turn ANY image into monochrome and then use filters in photoshop RGB (Red, Green, Blue) to lighten or darken the exposure in various spots.

Flexichrome Is quite involved. Basically, it is a colorization method used by Topps in the 1950's and early 60's (used quite a bit on Hockey & Football). You can still purchase kits on eBay and you can Google the kits and find sellers. You basically paint onto an image of the negative that you would have transferred to Kodak paper. 1952 Topps was the first set to utilize the method. Many times, the colors look a bit cartoonish. The glossing they used muted them quite a bit as did the stock which was more cream than white. Still, the beauty of '52 Topps is all about Flexichrome.
I haven't gotten really good with it yet. Each image takes me a couple of hours--just for the art-- and with my set at nearly 500 cards, I don't see me offering the whole set in Flexichrome. Still, I have done 80 of them since Christmas...time sure adds up!

[Phil68]

Here is an example of the difference between photo colorization with regular brushes and flexichrome process on my 1952 Satchel Paige and HI # Ted Williams. It's a pretty dramatic difference...

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Phil68

Hello!
Kodachrome is a type of color film that was in use from 1936-2009 and, recently, the final destination that processed it closed down for good. The '53 Bowmans were Kodachrome. The warm browns and reddish tones made Kodachrome a favorite for a long time. It was expensive to work with and process but the results were satisfying. You can mimic Kodachrome in photoshop--among other programs--by creating or plugging in filters. I have done this in making many of my Banty Red source files. Basically, digital killed Kodachrome. It is still my personal favorite.

Monochrome refers to "one color" or black & white. To make my cards, I typically turn ANY image into monochrome and then use filters in photoshop RGB (Red, Green, Blue) to lighten or darken the exposure in various spots.

Flexichrome Is quite involved. Basically, it is a colorization method used by Topps in the 1950's and early 60's (used quite a bit on Hockey & Football). You can still purchase kits on eBay and you can Google the kits and find sellers. You basically paint onto an image of the negative that you would have transferred to Kodak paper. 1952 Topps was the first set to utilize the method. Many times, the colors look a bit cartoonish. The glossing they used muted them quite a bit as did the stock which was more cream than white. Still, the beauty of '52 Topps is all about Flexichrome.
I haven't gotten really good with it yet. Each image takes me a couple of hours--just for the art-- and with my set at nearly 500 cards, I don't see me offering the whole set in Flexichrome. Still, I have done 80 of them since Christmas...time sure adds up!

Thanks for taking the time to explain these things to me.

When you look at the whole card-making process, there are a lot of things that you can learn about very quickly. However, the one area which is very difficult to understand is the artwork, and of course, how it was transferred to stone or zinc or whatever.

Now according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Leaf Gum Co. used Chromolithography to make their cards in the 1940s. I find that a little bit odd because the baseball cards from the 1800s were made using this technique. I would've thought that by the late 1940s, Leaf Gum Co. would've used a different type of technology. What are your thoughts on this?

So, the 53' Bowmans (football and baseball) are the only cards that feature Kodachrome photographs? No other set has ever done this? What about the sets Bowman put out in 1950, 1951 and 1952? Are these Flexichrome? They obviously don't look like the cards from 1953, and I don't think they look as nice as the 52' Topps cards either. It's all very confusing!

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Phil68

Mark,
Thank you! The lipstick is intentional, of course. I wanted it to pop big time! I have updated the Brooks. I went back to the drawing board....literally...and now have a flexichrome '52 for him as well...
They don't look too different, actually. I do prefer the Flexichrome version, however. I gave it a more traditional crop, slightly widened the borders and evened the skin tone. I also went with a Mid Century Gothic font that topps used on some cards. The '52 set used 11 different fonts! Crazy details.

WOW! I prefer them BOTH...

[Exhibitman]

Those are really nice.

[irv]

Being a 52 Topps collector, I enjoyed viewing those a lot!

Great job, Phil.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by irv

Being a 52 Topps collector, I enjoyed viewing those a lot!

Great job, Phil.

Thank you, ALL!
If it's cool with you guys, I'll post a few each week as they come out. Today was just one card. I licensed this image today as I didn't have a Maris in pins I hadn't used yet that would look good as a '52.

[Phil68]

And for our rookie card purists...

[Phil68]

Today's Addition is an upgrade for card #16-- Dodgers oddball hurler Billy Loes

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by irv

Being a 52 Topps collector, I enjoyed viewing those a lot!

Great job, Phil.

Dale,
As a fellow collector of 52's, what draws you to them? Aside from the obvious reason they were Topps first major set and groundbreaking, is there something else about them?
I thought you might appreciate some of the production detail I'm working on.
You may or may not know that I use vintage substrates on my cards. There is a texture to it that is unique and 1952 Topps cards are exactly the same.
I hand gloss each card and when I do, the color tones just fall into place and you can see the actual surfaces. It tones the cards down and makes them "warm"... Anyway, this is one of the traits that draws me to this set. The sometimes crude production or slipping print plates makes it challenging and gives 52's that "hand-made" feel as well.
Anyway, I took a photo of a Mattingly and tried to show the surface texture.
There just are not that many people that might share the enthusiasm for details like another '52 collector...

[irv]

Originally Posted by Phil68

Dale,
As a fellow collector of 52's, what draws you to them? Aside from the obvious reason they were Topps first major set and groundbreaking, is there something else about them?
.

Phil, unlike most others likely, my love for them came when my father gifted me 148 of them over 30 yrs ago.
As a kid, being a CDN, I only collected hockey cards and stuck with those until I lost interest, likely just before becoming a teenager?

When my father gave those to me, the card hobby was exploding, which rekindled my desire to collect again, somewhat.
I knew nothing of the 52 Topps cards at that time but I obviously looked into them to learn as much as I could.
Being the age I was with life changes happening so fast, I didn't do much with them other than put them in top loaders and put them in a large cardboard box.
My father and I went to a couple shows, I purchased the odd one here and there, etc, but then the hobby collapsed due to the junk card influx, and that was pretty much it until around late 2015/2016 when I dug back in and found this site.
Since 2016, I was aggressively buying them like they were going out of style in an attempt to maybe finish the set before my father moved on, but, like anything, due to various reasons, I have slowed significantly for the last 6 months or longer and now just mainly collect hockey cards again when time and money permits.

Of course 52 Topps will always be my favorite baseball set due to the family connection so I have not quit collecting them entirely, but even outside of that, I honestly think, due to the history around them, etc, they would likely be regardless?

[Phil68]

Man, I love looking at 'em. That's quite a compilation you've got going there!!!
Thank you for sharing. That's amazing that your Dad had them. My Dad never collected a single card. I was definitely on my own there, Lol.