Should ESPN Magazine have done a better job

[sports-rings]

I recently saw this ESPN Magazine cover.

In my opinion, ESPN blew it! They could have made a historic magazine cover, showing authentic amazing championship rings, but instead photographed 4 incredibly cheap and inaccurate knockoffs championship rings.

Do you think ESPN should have done a better job or am I being too harsh?

Your thoughts?

[Econteachert205]

Totally agree also don't like the tag line.

[bn2cardz]

I was in the graphic design and printing business (out now) and when I would be out with my wife I would get very irritated by things in the signs that were "flaws". She, as a layman, didn't see anything wrong with the prints. The prints were good enough for the layman, but they didn't pass my critical eye that was trained to catch such flaws.

This is how it is for you. The photo is meant to be illustrative of Boston's dominance in sports, not to be a factual representation about championship rings. You dedicate your time to rings and knowing all about them. That magazine cover is designed for the casual sports fan not a ring enthusiast. I see that cover and don't notice any flaws with the rings because I am not a ring collector.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I was in the graphic design and printing business (out now) and when I would be out with my wife I would get very irritated by things in the signs that were "flaws". She, as a layman, didn't see anything wrong with the prints. The prints were good enough for the layman, but they didn't pass my critical eye that was trained to catch such flaws.

This is how it is for you. The photo is meant to be illustrative of Boston's dominance in sports, not to be a factual representation about championship rings. You dedicate your time to rings and knowing all about them. That magazine cover is designed for the casual sports fan not a ring enthusiast. I see that cover and don't notice any flaws with the rings because I am not a ring collector.

I totally agree with you Andy. Even the sophisticated sports collector probably would not give the cover a second look unless his specialty was collecting rings.

Jeff

[sports-rings]

Interesting couple of posts.

I see your points. Maybe I should stick to decaffeinated coffee moving forward LOL.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Interesting couple of posts.

I see your points. Maybe I should stick to decaffeinated coffee moving forward LOL.

Well as I pointed out I can find myself doing the same thing. When you become an "expert" of something it is hard to see it through the layman's eyes. I don't think you were out of place for being frustrated as I am sure I would be the same way if they showed a bunch of reprint t206 cards when doing an article about Baseball History.

[sports-rings]

I hate to be wishy-washy but if one of our kids did a report and made a picture that was not authentic, we would say "Great Job" and "boy you went the extra mile making a picture of championship rings".

But ESPN is a billion dollar entity and would tell you they are the biggest sports media company in the world.

If they did an interview with a famous athlete, you would expect them to show a picture or two of the athlete and perhaps a picture from the interview. A stand in "double" would be outrageous.

I guess since the article was not about championship rings, what they did was OK. Had the main subject been about Boston's championship rings, I think you would agree that in that case, the photo would be unacceptable.

Had they used authentic championship rings, the magazine cover could have become one of the most sought-after publications in our hobby in a very long time.

[glchen]

Somewhat off topic, did anyone actually earn pro championship rings from multiple sports, somewhat like the picture? For example, Paul Allen owns both the Seahawks and Blazers, so if Portland ever wins an NBA title under his watch, he would have rings from two different sports. I assume it would have to be administrative rings rather than actual players. I know that teams sometimes give their broadcasters rings, so if broadcasters did multiple sports, they might have multiple rings.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I guess since the article was not about championship rings, what they did was OK. Had the main subject been about Boston's championship rings, I think you would agree that in that case, the photo would be unacceptable.

Had they used authentic championship rings, the magazine cover could have become one of the most sought-after publications in our hobby in a very long time.

This is my point, since the article wasn't about the rings and really were suppose to be symbolic of the rings for each sport and not from any particular championship I think it is ok. Then again, I can say that because I am not an expert and don't see any issues with the rings. I know if I was in your position I would have the same reaction.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by glchen

Somewhat off topic, did anyone actually earn pro championship rings from multiple sports, somewhat like the picture? For example, Paul Allen owns both the Seahawks and Blazers, so if Portland ever wins an NBA title under his watch, he would have rings from two different sports. I assume it would have to be administrative rings rather than actual players. I know that teams sometimes give their broadcasters rings, so if broadcasters did multiple sports, they might have multiple rings.

Announcers, high ranking executives who's responsibility is to run the stadium, and perhaps team trainers?

I believe Deon Sanders played in the World Series and Super Bowl so he should have multiple-sport championship rings as a player. I believe there could be some other players, perhaps from the 50s?

[quinnsryche]

Think of how hard or even impossible it would be to get four REAL rings in one place at one time to take a photo like that. Plus, some of those rings are so gaudy most people probably wouldn't even be able to tell which team they were from. The simplicity of the rings shown with the logos standing out I think gets the point across more than 4 actual rings. Although I would say in my opinion, it would have been much cooler to have the real thing depicted.

[camlov2]

Does anyone have pictures of the four actual rings that should have been used if it was an accurate picture? It is my guess that their fake rings make it much easier to tell the team/year then the real ones at a glance.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I hate to be wishy-washy but if one of our kids did a report and made a picture that was not authentic, we would say "Great Job" and "boy you went the extra mile making a picture of championship rings".

But ESPN is a billion dollar entity and would tell you they are the biggest sports media company in the world.

If they did an interview with a famous athlete, you would expect them to show a picture or two of the athlete and perhaps a picture from the interview. A stand in "double" would be outrageous.

I guess since the article was not about championship rings, what they did was OK. Had the main subject been about Boston's championship rings, I think you would agree that in that case, the photo would be unacceptable.

Had they used authentic championship rings, the magazine cover could have become one of the most sought-after publications in our hobby in a very long time.

No it wouldn't because nobody cares about that but you. It's not an article about rings, I don't understand how you don't get that? I am sure they have had pictures of athletes swinging bats that weren't proper mlb bats, tennis racquets, game basketballs, etc. so what?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I recently saw this ESPN Magazine cover.

In my opinion, ESPN blew it! They could have made a historic magazine cover, showing authentic amazing championship rings, but instead photographed 4 incredibly cheap and inaccurate knockoffs championship rings.

Do you think ESPN should have done a better job or am I being too harsh?

Your thoughts?

I appreciate your passion, Michael.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I appreciate your passion, Michael.

I agree, I mean you're telling me espn could not find a player to borrow each ring from or better yet, have one player from each franchise to model the rings. This would have made a much better cover.


To those who criticized michael, if the espn cover story had been about boston and used a bunch of repro baseball cards the gnashing and hand wringing would have been epic.

[egri]

Originally Posted by glchen

Somewhat off topic, did anyone actually earn pro championship rings from multiple sports, somewhat like the picture? For example, Paul Allen owns both the Seahawks and Blazers, so if Portland ever wins an NBA title under his watch, he would have rings from two different sports. I assume it would have to be administrative rings rather than actual players. I know that teams sometimes give their broadcasters rings, so if broadcasters did multiple sports, they might have multiple rings.

Gene Conley won championships with the Milwaukee Braves and Boston Celtics. He's the only player I can think of off the top of my head.

[travrosty]

oh my gosh, david klingler with a non ncaa approved football, what hacks! SI should know better.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by travrosty

oh my gosh, david klingler with a non ncaa approved football, what hacks! SI should know better.

Kind of appropriate you chose a photo with dynamite.

Any chance you can reduce your tone. I appreciate your comments but there's no need to be so confrontational. Do we really need need to make this a heated argument?

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by camlov2

Does anyone have pictures of the four actual rings that should have been used if it was an accurate picture? It is my guess that their fake rings make it much easier to tell the team/year then the real ones at a glance.

Imagine a cover with these four lookers instead!

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Kind of appropriate you chose a photo with dynamite.

Any chance you can reduce your tone. I appreciate your comments but there's no need to be so confrontational. Do we really need need to make this a heated argument?

Michael, I don't know if you remember when Travis posted on a regular basis...he was very confrontational all the time. I thought he had left for good, sorry that this is not the case.

I always appreciate your ring posts even though I don't think that the ESPN magazine cover was a big deal.

Jeff

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

Michael, I don't know if you remember when Travis posted on a regular basis...he was very confrontational all the time. I thought he had left for good, sorry that this is not the case.

I always appreciate your ring posts even though I don't think that the ESPN magazine cover was a big deal.

Jeff

Any hobbyist who is as passionate as Michael is, deserves to be appreciated.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Imagine a cover with these four lookers instead!

Yes those look a lot better, you are absolutely correct.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Yes those look a lot better, you are absolutely correct.

Ditto!!!

[camlov2]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Imagine a cover with these four lookers instead!

I was completely wrong, those rings would have been recognizable at a glance. Only thing is the fakes have added the years.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Imagine a cover with these four lookers instead!

Those would have worked (for their purposes) if they brightened the green in the Celtics', the red in the Sox and maybe added a bit of yellow to the Bruins.

[drcy]

I read a short article about a woman who makes fake versions of food for magazine ads, because the real food doesn't look as good in pictures. She said at home her kids often ask if the food sitting on the kitchen counter is real or an inedible project for work.