Amazing 53 PeeWee Reese psa8 (really could be a 9?!)

BigKidAtHeart

check this out .... it does not even have the dreaded "red print dot" in the sky

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1839490556

LuxuryWines

Probably A top 3 card in my All-time Favorites.... Beautiful card!!!
Wish I had some extra cash around to buy it!

Vargha

I owned a PSA 7 of that card before my big selloff. That is a sweet card.

Stonegate

What a beauty! Do any of you 1953 Bowman collectors have any history on the making of this card? Looks like the photo was shot at spring training, but I would have guessed that Vero Beach would have had Palm Trees instead of those oak or poplar looking one's in the background. Also, since this is actually a multi-player card, any idea of who the guy on the ground is? Body type looks more like a coach than a player -- also notice no dirt on the back of the pants which would have been there from the slide before he flipped over and no centerfielder. Hard to tell if it is a Dodger cap although the stockings look the same as Reese's but the undershirt is different. Must be a member or Dressen's coaching staff -- perhaps Alston who was the Dodger AAA Montreal Manager that year and would have been at Spring Training. With the fame that this card has, I figure there must be an expert on this board who knows this stuff!

Kevin

brucemo

That card is why I collect cards, and that looks like a nice example. I wish I knew more about the card. It's the only horizonal card in the color set, and it's the only card that looks like it might be a painting rather than a photo. When I show mine to people, everyone asks if it is a paiting. You'd think if it was a painting they'd have put stands in the background, but on the other hand, that'd leave less room for blue. It's got vignetting around the corners like it was a photo taken through a wide-angle lens. So my bet is incredibly well posed photo.

I'm not a Dodger expert by any stretch, but the guy on the ground looks like Snider.

The whole set is a triumph of photography, in my opinion. Not just the colors in the photos, but the cropping. It's the set where everything went right except for the absence of Williams, Mays, and Robinson. Even the print marks look good sometimes (card #158 has typical print, a giant blotch, not present on all cards, that looks like the sun trying to burn through background overcast -- cards with this print mark don't appear to be downgraded by PSA).

bruce

sixdart

There was an article in last month's Vintage Beckett regarding that set and card.

dom

The Dodgers bought an old Air Force base and moved their spring training headquarters there (Vero Beach) permanently in 1947. I would imagine most of the area had been cleared for military use which might explain the absence of palm trees. On the other hand, I haven't seen too many palm trees in Brooklyn. Maybe this photo was shot from Bedford Avenue looking north?

That does look like Snider on the ground. The absence of outfielders confirms that it's obviously a posed shot of Reese in the middle of completing a double play for the camera. Don't let the red sweatshirt bother you. In spring training, especially during drills, players wore whatever they wanted under their jerseys.

BigKidAtHeart

<< <i>There was an article in last month's Vintage Beckett regarding that set and card. >>

the only reference to the Reese card is this:
Noting the incredible composition in a 1940's black-and-white horizontal photograph of a leaping PeeWee Reese, Bowman colorized the shot and included it in the otherwise all color set. The card has proven to be one of the most admired for its aesthetic qualities. Recently, professionally graded Mint copies have traded hands in the $9000 range!

So Bruce, that at least explains the "Painted effect" you referred to...

now, I wonder where I can get my hands on the original B&W photo?!

RedHeart54

It has always been a matter of debate regarding the identity of the sliding player. I wonder if any of the HOF historians would know?

brucemo

Apparently not, but I'll push this to the top in case someone comes along who knows.

Thank you BKAH for telling us more about the Reese card. I didn't know that, and I probably would have missed the Beckett Vintage article.

bruce

BigKidAtHeart

<< <i>It has always been a matter of debate regarding the identity of the sliding player. I wonder if any of the HOF historians would know? >>

I wonder if the new JOE ORLANDO baseball card book would tell more of the card's history or who the sliding player is????

toppsgun

A "9" my horny toad. Those corners are no better than a 7. And the centering is not that great, either. The seller knows it, too. Look at the BIN, it's less than 2/3 of SMR. Take your money and run, fella.

FatCat

<< <i>A "9" my horny toad. Those corners are no better than a 7. And the centering is not that great, either. The seller knows it, too. Look at the BIN, it's less than 2/3 of SMR. Take your money and run, fella. >>



Actually....the BIN ($1375.00) is 91.67% of SMR ($1500.00).

In my opinion, it's a nice "8".

Perhaps I'm wrong....but it sounds like you are trying to scare off other bidders so that you can get the card cheap.

toppsgun

Wow, that's quite a drop from the February SMR. An 8 went from $2,100 to $1,500 and a 9 went from $9,500 to $5,000.

BTW, you are wrong. I don't want the card.

brucemo

Looks like a very nice 8 to me, since it has no centering issues, proper color, and no red dot. There might be a touch on the top right, but that's allowed on an 8.

This card has been dropping in price lately. I don't know why. I assume it's because it's expensive and everyone who has one wants one, so supply has beaten demand.

Musial has also been dropping in that set.

bruce

FB

Nice pickup Bruce!

dom

Hey Bruce...adding my congrats also. They just don't make cards like that any more.

On the subject of Reese cards, do you think the loss of a bit of original gloss on this beauty will affect its value?

1951 Pee Wee

BigKidAtHeart

dom,
here it is for everyone to see!!
(notice the "slight loss off orignal gloss)

brucemo

I decided that that card will eventually be worth more, and in the meantime it's pretty.

Regarding the '51 Bowman, all old cards are beautiful if properly graded and properly described.

bruce