Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[DeweyintheHall]

You know, it is pretty good. Topps' regular issue sets have been doing this now with abandon for several years in order to show the hot new acquisitions/draft picks with their current team. I actually find it disappointing. In their desperation to have the most current "look" possible, at what point does it really become too much? I'm not suggesting they don't have the right, and they obviously have the skill. But, should they be doing this? Is it awful to have an image of the guy in a minor league or other uniform, or to not be able to showcase the latest FA signing? At what point does it become messing with reality/history? I don't want to make this more than it is, but it just really has started to rub me the wrong way. When they used to do it, you could tell at a glance they had done work. Now, with the technology they have, it looks like the photo was snapped as shown. And that bothers me. I guess I'm old enough now to be labeled a curmudgeon.

[FatJack]

Originally Posted by DeweyintheHall

I guess I'm old enough now to be labeled a curmudgeon.

Hey, you kids, get off of my lawn!

If you look, btw, many of the pictures used in Bowman (digitally altered to appear as major league uniforms) also appear in Pro Debut in their original (minor league) state.

This, I think, partially answers one question. No, there is nothing terrible about a player appearing in his minor league finery. Not even Topps thinks there is. OTOH, there are different types of collectors. Some only want the players in major league unis and some actually prefer the minor league unis. And then there is the crossover crowd, who is happy to see both, but unlikely to buy both products if they're using the same photos without the major league/minor league uniform difference.

I think its always worth remembering that Topps is in the business of making money...nothing more. If the majority of people buying their products were offended by the digital chicanery--offended to the point of not buying the product--then they wouldn't do it. As it happens, we have fairly contemporary evidence that most collectors prefer the digital changes. When there were multiple card companies, some (Fleer in particular) would have players who were traded in non-retouched uniforms of their former employers with current team designations. Collectors HATE that. Really, really, really HATE that. Let's say, as example, a Dodger player traded to the Giants has a card designated as a Giants card, but showing the player in a Dodger uni. Now a Dodger collector has to have a card designated as a Giants card in his collection and a Giant collector has to have a card of a player wearing a Dodger uniform in his. Fans of those two teams hate each other. And collectors are extremely vocal about such things.

Me, as a Mets fan and collector, I thought I had a complete run of Topps Mets from '62-2000 or thereabouts, And then, one day years ago, I see the 1962 Topps Don Zimmer card--where he's clearly wearing a Mets uniform and cap (unretouched and not obscured), though the card lists him with the Reds. Well, crap. All this time I thought I had a complete run of Mets only to find out there's a Mets card that isn't listed as a Met on any checklist. Thank goodness it wasn't an expensive card; I'd have never forgiven Topps (or myself) if it were. And, as a Mets fan and collector, I loved that Michael Cuddyer is included convincingly as a Met in last year's Heritage, even though the uniform number is a clear indication that it's not real.

In summation, the people who actually buy Topps products have overwhelmingly demonstrated that they prefer the retouched images--especially when the digital manipulation is as good as it is today.

[Merkle923]

Well, this is enough to drive you right out of your gourd, as they used to say.

Aubrey Gatewood pitched just 68 major league games over parts of four seasons and he's a rare fish, if not a white whale, in at least four different uniforms. Three of these are: the team that originally signed him (Detroit), the team he pitched most of his big league games with (the California - as opposed to the Los Angeles - Angels), and the team he finished up with in a three-game stint (Atlanta). There's a black and white wire photo of him in a fielding play with the Braves, and a J.W. Morey color portrait of him with Richmond which adept photoshoppers can alter easily to an Atlanta cap.

The fourth troublesome team is the Mets, with whom Gatewood spent most of Spring Training 1962 before being returned to the Angels. I've seen at least one and maybe two black and white portraits of him in a New York uniform, but never anything in color - until a negative packet with his name on it and dated March 1962 turned up in 'the' collection.

And this was what was inside: not just an action photo, but an image of him covering the plate on a throw after a wild pitch, with his back to the camera. So - color of Aubrey Gatewood with the Mets which is pretty much of no use to anybody, unless you're a play-at-the-plate collector (I knew one of those).

The runner, by the way, is '62 rookie Dick Tracewski of the Dodgers:

[Merkle923]

Not to ruin your fun, Jack, but of course there is a version of the '62 Zimmer card not just showing him in a Mets uniform but identifying the Mets as his team.

This was on a proof sheet from the famous "Ceiling Find" of 1985, when a fellow near New London, Connecticut, was remodeling his rec room, pulled down the false ceiling, and found that the insulation was made up of 50-75 paper and aluminum proofers' sheets made for Topps in 1962. The home's previous owner had been an employee at the printer's and saw an opportunity to do a little DIY which doubled as a kind of time capsule for card collectors. With the exception of proof cards and sheets from the 7th Series of Topps Baseball from that year, every 1962 Topps Baseball, Football, or Hockey proof - paper or aluminum - came from that ceiling.

In a serious case of bad timing, the owner contacted me at the exact point when I found myself with the smallest amount of money to my name since I had been a sophomore in High School. I was able to buy one sheet for myself by borrowing money from my then 17-year old sister, and for the rest I referred them to several respectable dealers. The Zimmer and a couple of other fun proof variations were on the only one I got. This is the only known copy, and while some of the other sheets were proofs of individual or multiple colors, there weren't any of these preliminary tests for this one sheet.

One other note: on the subject of altering uniforms on photographic baseball cards, it's not like this is anything new. The first such changes by a manufacturer date at least as far back as the manufacturers of the Old Judge Cigarette cards of 1887-1890. They changed city names on uniforms (almost always easily visible) but also erased some so artfully that you would not have noticed then and would be hard pressed to notice today.

So, your complaint is 129 years too late. Here's the Zimmer/Mets:

[DeweyintheHall]

Does anyone have a larger scan of this image of Kusnyer in his brief stint with Kansas City?

P.S. Still don't like all the airbrushing...grumble grumble...

[DeweyintheHall]

Oops...

[DeweyintheHall]

Having trouble with the keyboard tonight...

[FatJack]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

And this was what was inside: not just an action photo, but an image of him covering the plate on a throw after a wild pitch, with his back to the camera. So - color of Aubrey Gatewood with the Mets which is pretty much of no use to anybody, unless you're a play-at-the-plate collector (I knew one of those).

The runner, by the way, is '62 rookie Dick Tracewski of the Dodgers:

I love it!

I don't suppose there's an ID of the umpire. Looks a bit like Augie Donatelli but, coming from me (with my well established poor facial recognition skills), that's fairly meaningless.

[Cusick]

Originally Posted by FatJack

I don't suppose there's an ID of the umpire. Looks a bit like Augie Donatelli but, coming from me (with my well established poor facial recognition skills), that's fairly meaningless.

I did a ProQuest search on Gatewood for March, 1962. The only game between the Mets and the Dodgers which I picked up was on March 14th. The Dodgers B team played the Mets in St. Petersburg, FL. Gatewood pitched 3 innings. Tracewski played the entire game and scored two runs, so I think this is the game when the photo was shot. The three umpires for the game were Al Barlick, Doug Harvey, and Vinnie Smith. It's likely that the home plate umpire is the one who was listed first in the box score; that was Barlick. Most Barlick photos don't look much like the ump in the subject photo, but I've attached one which I think bears some resemblance, although he was obviously a younger man in the attached shot.

[baseball-birthdays.com]

eBay seller harv914 has listed a number of George Brace photos for sale... a nice 8x10 of Fred Stanley with the Pilots, for example.

[rico43]

Among the scarcer images l noticed were Chuck Essegian, Athletics, and Gino Cimoli, Orioles. Also a Stan Williams with the Twins.

[FatJack]

A while back, I bought a lot of Jim Rowe photographs on eBay. No true White Whales, but close to 90 images--mostly unpublished--that did include some of those guys who maybe aren't impossible (or even close), but also not too common. You know...Mike Howard, Rick Sweet, Tim Burke, Greg Harris...those kinda dudes. The more scarce players I posted to Baseball-Birthdays...except for this Larry Bowa.

I am aware of three Larry Bowa Met color images online. The first I ever saw was a small but otherwise nice image of Bowa with the jacket, reaching back to toss. The third was a completely different (no jacket) shot I think was an Uncle Maxie image. Inbetween was the one John posted to Unedited Images on Baseball-Birthdays. I didn't post this one because of its similarity to the Baseball-Birthdays image.

In retrospect, I think that was a mistake on my part. The difference between the Bowa posted to B-B and the Bowa from my lot is this....my Bowa is smiling.

(I have attempted to clean away the schmutz--dust and scratches--of which there was plenty, though I did so rather hurriedly.)

[Merkle923]

Saves did not have the meaning in 1962 that they do today, nor even what they had in 1972, but you could probably stump nearly every New York Yankees fan by asking them to identify the only Bronx reliever to finish among the top five in Saves in any A.L. season in the 1962-69 era.

It was Marshall Bridges, who recorded 18 of them in '62 to finish second in the American League. But Bridges had none after September 3rd of that season, was an afterthought in the World Series, got exactly one save in '63 and was moved out to Washington.

He was also a baseball card mystery. Bridges appeared on only one major league card during his career (in the board game "Challenge The Yankees") even though Topps shot him repeatedly during his stops in St. Louis, Cincinnati, New York, and Washington. It is believed that Bridges, like Jack Reed, Chris Short, Maury Wills and other guys missing from pre-1967 issues, had signed an exclusive deal with Topps' rival Fleer Gum.

In any event here is a nice Bridges shot from 'the' collection, dated to 1962.

[cheech411]

he was 96

[rico43]

Between his debut season for the Seattle Pilots (1969) and two seasons with the Reds (1973-74), Dick Baney had two stints with the Baltimore Orioles. The first was June, 1970-June, 1971 and again in Sept. of '71 until the end of the season. But he was stuck in AAA the entirety of both stints, going 5-4 in 22 games, 14 starts.

In between, he had yet another stint with the Reds, also in AAA. Photo from Lexibell files.

[rico43]

From 1946 until his death on a golf course in 1977, Bing Crosby habored a secret passion -- the Pittsburgh Pirates. He owned a minority share of the team for 30 years, but it's fairly rare to see him in his baseball mode.
Here is pictured in harmony with the Pirates' $100,000 bonus baby, Paul Pettit, during the Pirates' minor league training camp in 1950, shortly after Pettit's bonus was announced.



Photo from Lexibell archive

[cheech411]

on e bay

[oldtimers]

Good Morning to everyone. Maybe someone could help me. I like the 1951-1952 Bowman look. Is their a Program or way to do the players now like the 51-52 style? ALSO LOOKING FOR SOME PICS OF SIBBY SISTI AND WALLY WESTLAKE. THANKS FOR ANY HELP

[cheech411]

on e bay

[cheech411]

1972 brant alyea st louis tv color or colorized pic thanks