Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[Terry D]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

Not impossible with the 1982-83 Giants, but pretty scarce:

I have two color shots of him with the 82 Giants, this is the first I've seen of him in the 83 uniform. I've been wanting this.

[lebby20]

Do any of you have a "Posed" color image of Don Baylor from his one season with the 1976 A's? I have not been able to find much at all and would greatly appreciate some help. Thanks.

[Cusick]

Originally Posted by lebby20

Do any of you have a "Posed" color image of Don Baylor from his one season with the 1976 A's? I have not been able to find much at all and would greatly appreciate some help. Thanks.

I cut this out of a magazine years ago, but I don't recall which publication it was. Probably dates to the 1980's or 1990's.

[rico43]

He actually had a second go-round with the A's in 1988, and there are a few good Don Baylor A's out there from that farewell season:

Mother's Cookies Set:


Donruss Team Set (Album, unperforated)


Reverse of Score Rookie/Traded


And the notorious 1977 Topps Proof Card

[rico43]

One more '77:




From When Topps Had (Base)Balls blog...

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by lebby20

Do any of you have a "Posed" color image of Don Baylor from his one season with the 1976 A's? I have not been able to find much at all and would greatly appreciate some help. Thanks.

Here are a couple of additional options...

[hobbs11]

Hey there, I have an odd request for the board.

By chance does anyone have the Topps un-airbrushed image of this pic of Tony Conigliaro in the Red Sox garb?

Couldn't locate after a few searches in the virtual stratosphere.....Thanks in advance!

[Merkle923]

Insomuch as Topps did nearly all its airbrushing ON the actual negative, the original version probably hasn't existed since the 1971 1st Series went into production 45 years ago.

[hobbs11]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

Insomuch as Topps did nearly all its airbrushing ON the actual negative, the original version probably hasn't existed since the 1971 1st Series went into production 45 years ago.

So it's probably not going to be found anytime soon on the Topps Vault folders? Ok then....

[Merkle923]

Unless there was a duplicate made of that exact frame in 1970, it won't turn up because it doesn't exist in its original state.

Other images from the same shoot - presumably from the spring of 1970, with the Boston cap and uniform untouched - very well might. But, literally, Topps production methods at the time involved in-camera editing (the photographer was instructed to take a picture that could be used 'as is' on a card; no cropping or blowups) with the actual large format negative roll he submitted cut into individual images.

If the image needed to be altered - a new logo or color airbrushed onto the original, or as in this case, a logo simply blacked out and no replacement made - it was almost always done on the negative itself. So even if Topps happened to randomly pick the negative they used to produce Conigliaro's 1971 card and offer it on eBay, the negative would look exactly like the card, with the cap blacked out.

The sole exceptions to this, as I understand it, were with last-minute deals such as demonstrated by the Bob Buhl 1962 cards shown below. Buhl's card showing him with, and labeling him with, the Braves, was already in production when he was traded to the Cubs on April 30. Topps was easily able to change the team label in the 'wood panel' overlay but had to wait until a second print run to go back and retouch his cap by altering the actual printing plates in some manner, the specifics of which I don't know. Thus the original Buhl negative still shows him with the Milwaukee cap intact.

Conigliaro was traded by the Red Sox to the Angels on October 11, 1970, so it was hardly the kind of last-minute scenario that Buhl's team change was. The negative itself would've been altered. And there's no cheesy "CA" logo because Topps pretty much stuck to just washing out logos from about 1966 through 1971 and really only got back into trying to paint new caps in '72, with often hilariously disastrous results.

(By the way, if and when Conigliaro does turn up on the Giant Topps Negative Roulette Wheel - which would have to feature numbers perhaps as high as 2,000,000 - they shot Conig repeatedly in his Red Sox days, and they got him at Anaheim Stadium with the Angels in 1971, but they did not shoot him during his brief return to the Red Sox in 1975, so there will be no images of him in the double-knits and red caps besides the SSPC 'out-take' I posted here last spring).

[pegasus27]

I can't thank enough all the persons that have kept this list alive and have been updating it through the years. Who knew 11 years ago what this list would turn into.

[Merkle923]

I think we've seen this image of this peripatetic (two years, 35 games, four different teams) infielder before, but never quite this cleanly.

Coughtry finished his career - and a 1962 season that saw him play for the A's, Angels, and Indians - with three games in Cleveland. This is marked as a Cleveland Plain Dealer photo.

[DeweyintheHall]

Any images with the Red Sox would be greatly appreciated....

[Terry D]

Originally Posted by pegasus27

I can't thank enough all the persons that have kept this list alive and have been updating it through the years. Who knew 11 years ago what this list would turn into.

Your missing list of the 80s is similar to mine, but I think I have some of the ones you list as still unfound. I think some have been posted here, actually (try Mirabella, Orioles) while others have turned up through Topps Vault (try Sinatro, A's).

[Merkle923]

Coughtry was captured with the Red Sox by George Brace at Comiskey Park in 1960, so if his daughter ever resumes selling prints from the collection, you can get a copy from her.

[baseball-birthdays.com]

.

[rrb77]

.

[Merkle923]

That's the Brace image of Coughtry. Take care. His daughter is litigious about compensation for her father's work.

[SDL]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

That's the Brace image of Coughtry. Take care. His daughter is litigious about compensation for her father's work.

What's that about? I take it she's a lawyer?

[Merkle923]

She used to sell prints of her father's images - and he had to have shot 5,000 players in nearly all their different uniforms and missed very few of them between 1929 and 1992 - for $10 a pop. Each bit of correspondence and every cranny of her website was filled with copyright warnings and each print had the largest copyright/DO NOT DUPLICATE stamp on it that I've ever seen.

Here's Brace's obit: George Brace, 89 - tribunedigital-chicagotribune He had started as an apprentice to the great George Burke, one of the top five early baseball photographers. If you see a picture of a visiting player in Chicago from the 20th Century the likelihood it's a Burke or a Brace has got to be 70%_80%.

At some point in the last decade, Mary Brace made a deal with Argenta Images which started to digitize the hundreds of thousands of images and sell them at the same price - $10 per. It must've been 2014 when she sued Argenta for non-payment under their licensing agreement. She got money out of the deal but the end result was: no more Argenta website, no more Brace website. To my knowledge the images are not being distributed at the moment - which is a shame because to use our parlance here, she owns a sea full of White Whales and a Unicorn Ranch. Matt Keough in all his one-week cameos? Several color poses each. Marlan Coughtry with the Red Sox? Mickey Scott and ex-Brewers GM Doug Melvin as Yankee batting practice pitchers? Sure - regular uni or pre-game pullovers? The bat boys of the '30s, '40s, '50s? All of them including the one who grew up to be a famous Chicago TV news anchor.

You can argue the merits of the copyright laws all you want. I've looked at some of the obscure players I happened to photograph 35 years ago and thought "why should I just give these away?" and then thought "as opposed to hiding them and making exactly ten dollars off them if I auctioned the negatives off on eBay when other collectors and gamers and fans would find uses for them as I do?" More over, if I post a Randy McGilberry here or one of these new images I obtained in 'the' collection and it is used by somebody commercially the likeliest means is to pay the player to autograph them - which means that I am in essence finally paying the guy who took the time to pose for me in the first place! Win/win/win.

However, this is not the Mary Brace approach. I know of some media sites that have received demands to take down a posted Brace shot (one that was usually incorrectly claimed as theirs by one of the big photo archive companies). We've discussed Topps and their dichotomy on this (they sell the negatives only as collectibles and insist they maintain reproduction rights for the images, yet they happily post every one of them with a watermark that with a little skill you can work around, and they only get legally pissy if you post the de-watermarked images, or if you combine their images with their various card designs).

But Mary has sued - not, to my knowledge anyway, over posting a black and white version of a color shot of the answer to a trivia question from the 1960 Red Sox - but she's sued over her Dad's photography. And won.

So the long version of my cryptic "take care" is...will anybody come after us with pitchforks and subpoenas if the Coughtry shot winds up here? Not likely. But whatever the chances are, they increase if we post them without attribution or acknowledgment, or if somebody now takes the Coughtry from that post and makes a facsimile card from it or gets him to sign it and then tries to sell either, or post them elsewhere.

(Apart from the fact that one of the handful rules of here is to cite the source of anything you post).