Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[Merkle923]

With a different uniform number, presumably in 1977 (and definitely at Candlestick, unlike the previous one, at Wrigley):

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

The explanation is that the 1969 Miller Topps Vault photo was taken, at the earliest, about March 1.

Miller's 1969 card, if I remember my dates correctly, was issued in the 3rd Series - which would have been released around April 20, 1969. The process of turning a brand new photo into a card in packages shipped across the nation used to take roughly three months.

The series Miller was in "closed" and was printed in January, 1969. Maybe early February. The first 1969 Spring Training photos to appear on 1969 cards were in the 5th Series (starting with card number 426), which hit stores around June 1.

Also, the Miller card photo doesn't show him with the Orioles. It's capless for a reason, as nearly all such shots were in that time - in case the guy got traded and they wanted to put out his card earlier than June 1. Among other things, you'll notice that his uniform has blue piping coming down from the neck and the Orioles never wore that. The image was taken at Mets' spring training 1966.

Yes, I mentioned that #323 was a BHNH Mets picture from 1966. So Topps made the decision of whom they were going to use the older photos for (for Series 1-4) before the photographers even went to camp, huh? Interesting. I would have thought they would have excluded players who had changed teams from the earlier cards and used the camp photos to fill out Series 5-6.

Of course, this strategy would have been very difficult to implement in 1969, given that there were four new teams to shoot. A pretty lousy time to have been without much in the way of new pictures for over a year, due to the 1967-1968 boycott, I'd expect. And also the spring training boycott of 1969 pushed availability back, as well. (Although Miller was in camp and being photographed by the Baltimore Sun on Feb. 22.)

At least Topps still had the late-summer series to issue in '69. That stopped after 1973, which is why the expanded '75 set has so many bad airbrush jobs.

Thanks for the info.

(Interesting that they even chose to give a card to Miller, given his poor record and that he'd been in the minors for the past two seasons. I guess somebody figured the Orioles knew what they were doing when they drafted him…)

[FatJack]

More than one person has said that about present day Topps--you'd think they'd hold off on known free agents and such for the second series. But they don't. If you don't change teams before, say, December 1, you're likely to be with your old team and in series one. I think they do some of that to gin up interest in the update series which, but for the hot rookies and stars changing teams, is mostly a waste of trees--basically 300 cards when 100 would be more than enough (says the guy who always buys a bunch).

[Merkle923]

Not to continue to wander totally off topic but by contract Topps is forbidden from issuing a card of a player in its main set until that player has appeared in a major league game. That was what the entire Alex Gordon flap was about in 2006.

[FatJack]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

Not to continue to wander totally off topic but by contract Topps is forbidden from issuing a card of a player in its main set until that player has appeared in a major league game. That was what the entire Alex Gordon flap was about in 2006.

I believe, technically, Topps can put them on cardboard if they're on the 25-man at any point in the regular season, whether or not they actually appeared in a game. September call-ups can't be pictured in the year of the call-up (that's 40 man) but then can appear the following year if they got into a game that previous September. And then, of course, there's the mess that is Bowman.

My point was:
If Cespedes, for example, is still unsigned on December 1st (or wherever their cutoff date falls), Topps will make SURE he's in Series One as a Met. Most collectors don't understand why you couldn't hold him for Series Two to get him in a proper (if digitally altered) uniform of his new team. I have my suspicions and it doesn't bother me much. But other collectors hate that. And most collectors also hate the Update Series for all its wasted cards. How many Puig's were there in the Update Series that one year? Seemed like a hundred of 'em.

[Merkle923]

We're each emphasizing a different side of the same coin. They are in the business of selling cards, and they are now denied what they could have done in 1969 when Larry Miller might have been a filler to match the quota of Orioles needed in the third series because they were holding back Mike Cuellar to the fifth series with the intent of photographing him in spring training that year.

In other words, not only do they need to include Cespedes but if they said "he's unsigned, hold off, put Brandon Nimmo in there instead" - they wouldn't be able to because he (presumably) won't have already been a big leaguer by the time the 2016 set comes out.

[BklynJace]

Can't resist continuing the off-topicdom for at least one more post: Did the contract rules/usual practices change at some point?

Seems like most older Topps cards came after a player's big-league debut, but not always. Tom Parsons' '62 Pirates card always interested me: He didn't make his debut until the next year, yet there he is. And in what I believe is another rarity for vintage Topps, three years later Parsons has gone from a card of his own to sharing a rookie card with Cleon Jones.

(Not in Met togs, alas, but oh well.)

Sorry for the continued digression, but I just love this stuff.

[Merkle923]

Yes. Some time in the 1995-2005 time frame. At the insistence of the players' association. It applied to all card manufacturers' primary "product."

[Pinetarpress]

These were posted on Ebay by seller disney-luver under the name Dave Rignetti...this is a pic of neither Dave Rignetti or Dave Righetti...this is 2 game Yankee with ZERO official at bats Dave Stegman

[Merkle923]

The veteran White Sox announcer and well-traveled reliever appeared just 11 times for Texas in 1979. In the sixth of these games, on May 8, Farmio hit Al Cowens of Kansas City with a pitch and fractured his jaw. In the same game he hit Frank White and broke his wrist. Between them the two Royals' stars missed 54 games.

Farmer was dealt to Chicago on June 15; Cowens was sent to the Angels in December, and then to the Tigers on May 27 of the next season. Less than a month later, though each was with a new team, when Farmer induced Cowens to ground out, Cowens charged the mound and tackled Farmer from behind. Cowens was suspended and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Farmer later dropped charges and the two took the line-up cards to the plate on September 1 and shook hands. And if you ask Ed to tell you this story, it's a lot better, and a lot longer.

For our purposes, this is the only known color image of Farmer in Rangers garb, and it's buried in the back of the team's 1979 yearbook.

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade and 1914 Indians uni, as offered by eBay seller fedxit.

[tnfoto]

1912 Cleveland Naps (Indians) uni, as offered by eBay seller fedxit.

[tnfoto]

1922 White Sox, from a 1922 White Sox team photo offered by eBay seller jcm331.

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade and 1922 White Sox uni, also from the aforementioned jcm331 White Sox team photo.

[Merkle923]

Yet another thing I've not only never seen before - but I didn't even see it when I surveyed the Topps photo archives - color images of his nine-game cameo with Cleveland in 1980.

Continues to suggest that my estimate of a million images is way low.

[FatJack]

Am I mistaken or is this the late Bobby D. Moore of the '85 Giants? Color shots of him are as scarce as hens teeth.

[hobbs11]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

.

Continues to suggest that my estimate of a million images is way low.

Question then ol' vendor of the Vault, purveyor of the picture palace as another round of "Mo"s are recently offered out on TV including a few more of Moore. When searched one can find a few color pics of Barry Moore of the ChiSox when he was traded there in 1970. For example, this TV one was found sans hat and others, like the 2nd attachment, can be located in less than stellar aesthetics. One would think there have to be others then of him taken within the same photo shoot. Right? So my question is has anyone come across a color pic of Barry with his hat on for the Pale Hose as part of the Topps Vault stash?

Thanks in advance!

[Merkle923]

Sure looks like him.

BTW one correction to the Topps timeline. Though 1973 is generally recorded as the last year the cards were issued in series (and thus the last year spring training photos could be used the same year), the actual change took place a year earlier, after the 1972 set. The '73s were issued in series in most of the country, but Topps test marketed the one-series-of-660 approach in Florida in 1973. All the '73 cards were printed by January of that year.

[bobb49]

FatJack, this is Bobby Moore. Where did you get this? Is it for sale without the Topps logo?

[FatJack]

Originally Posted by bobb49

FatJack, this is Bobby Moore. Where did you get this? Is it for sale without the Topps logo?

Prior to their auctions, Topps Vault creates the images that they'll use to sell the actual negatives/transparencies/blank backs/etc. As do many other sellers, they then park the images on an auction helper host site. I don't know how many they offer in a given week, but figure they have at least enough images parked to get through several days. As images get posted to eBay, new images are created and parked. Yada, yada, yada. Point is the Moore images are newly parked but have not yet been offered for sale. When offered for sale, you can bid along with anyone else (usually, any image I'm interested in, other people are also, so I don't usually win them). If you win the negative or transparency, it will not have the Topps watermark on it. The watermark exists to keep people who don't buy the negative or transparency from using the image from the auction and/or profiting from its use. Note: you would require either special equipment or better knowledge of software and hardware than I personally have to be able to use the negative or transparency. Actual size tends to be like 1 3/4 by 2 (or something like that) and they are--as the words express--negatives or transparencies (think "slides"; do you remember slides?), not like polaroid pictures or 8x10s or anything. And, FWIW, Topps sells them, technically, as memorabilia; I don't believe actual use rights are transferred (though the courts might have to straighten that one out). By that I mean it is not Topps intention, should you purchase one of these, that you can then run off hundreds of 8x10s and sell them on eBay (though I'm sure that happens).

I'm sure I've expressed this poorly. But, hopefully, the answer you're looking for is in there somewhere.