Baseball card photos - Worst ones

Baseball card photos - Worst ones

Postby ConnieMack » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:13 pm

Looking at some of the pics of players posted in the draft thread, over the years Topps and others used a few non complimentary photos on the players cards.......some are outright fugly. Especially some of the early 60's cards, some years Topps used the same pics, just airbrushed hats, backgrounds etc.
Don Mossi's '66 Topps card has to be one of the worst. Willie McGee ( ET ) has to have a few winners out there too.....

Image

Have any others ?
Jimmie Foxx " The Beast " 1932
He hit 58 homers and lost as many as seven more to rain-outs . Foxx also slugged .749 with a .469 OBP, 213 hits, 151 runs scored, 169 RBI, 116 walks, and a .364 batting average.
User avatar
ConnieMack
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:13 pm

Postby kruker » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:30 pm

I'm sure Otis Nixon has a couple terrible cards out there.
"Everybody's a critic. This wasn't an aesthetic endeavor."
User avatar
kruker
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 17164
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: Bucks/NYC

Postby SteveJeltzPhanClub » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:32 pm

Ok, this is a thread that is right up my ally:

I don't know about ugly, but this Gus Zernial card from the classic 1952 Topps set is certainly the weirdest card I've ever seen:

Image

The balls magically sticking to his bat, the mysterious OK signal, the pink undershirt? Just a bizarre combo coming from a set that didn't do typically do "goofy".

Through the web, I learned: Apparently, this photo was placed on the 1952 Topps baseball card of Gus Zernial, signifying his six home runs in three games in May 1951.
User avatar
SteveJeltzPhanClub
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Postby ConnieMack » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:46 pm

Nothing like having your pic on a baseball card...with your fly down LOL....French guy....

Claude Raymond - Astros. 1966 and 1967 cards, Topps used the same photo shoot for both years...guess they had no proof readers.....

1967
Image

1966
Image
Jimmie Foxx " The Beast " 1932
He hit 58 homers and lost as many as seven more to rain-outs . Foxx also slugged .749 with a .469 OBP, 213 hits, 151 runs scored, 169 RBI, 116 walks, and a .364 batting average.
User avatar
ConnieMack
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:13 pm

Postby SteveJeltzPhanClub » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:34 pm

This 2007 Topps Derek Jeter is a travesty-sham-mockery:

Image

Look in the dugout, and in the stands to see why...
User avatar
SteveJeltzPhanClub
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Postby Shore » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:41 pm

Image
Trent Steele wrote:maybe the phillies can next kidnap and execute my mom in their ongoing attempt to do things that makes me want to hate them
User avatar
Shore
All-Seeing, All-Knowing
 
Posts: 7096
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: Indoors

Postby Werthless » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:00 pm

SteveJeltzPhanClub wrote:Ok, this is a thread that is right up my ally:

I don't know about ugly, but this Gus Zernial card from the classic 1952 Topps set is certainly the weirdest card I've ever seen:

Image

The balls magically sticking to his bat, the mysterious OK signal, the pink undershirt? Just a bizarre combo coming from a set that didn't do typically do "goofy".

Through the web, I learned: Apparently, this photo was placed on the 1952 Topps baseball card of Gus Zernial, signifying his six home runs in three games in May 1951.


This reminds me of this picture, of Bench holding 7(!) balls in his hand.
User avatar
Werthless
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 11424
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:07 pm

Postby SteveJeltzPhanClub » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:01 pm

This is a card that was never produced (1966 Topps), but totally should have been:

Image

There is a whole bunch of "cards that should have been" listed on this website and some of them are pretty dang cool.

http://www.vintagecardtraders.org/virtu ... l#john-56t
User avatar
SteveJeltzPhanClub
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Postby philliesphhan » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Aside from the Paige one, which I understand why they wouldn't have made that, is there anywhere that says why those other cards weren't produced?
"My hip is #$!&@ up. I'm going to Africa for two weeks."
User avatar
philliesphhan
Plays the Game the Right Way
Plays the Game the Right Way
 
Posts: 34094
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: the corner of 1st and 1st

Postby SteveJeltzPhanClub » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:43 pm

philliesphhan wrote:Aside from the Paige one, which I understand why they wouldn't have made that, is there anywhere that says why those other cards weren't produced?


In most cases, there was a contract dispute with the player, and Topps was unable to produce cards of said players.

In some cases, like the 1967 Topps Nolan Ryan or the 1963 Fleer Pete Rose, it's a matter of a minor league call-up who didn't merit a card.

There are also some HOF players featured on sets when they didn't play (Cobb, Cochrane, Speaker and Walter Johnson on 1956 Topps cards design), and also some Negro league players, for whom a card set was never created for.
User avatar
SteveJeltzPhanClub
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Postby ConnieMack » Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:15 pm

SteveJeltzPhanClub wrote:
philliesphhan wrote:Aside from the Paige one, which I understand why they wouldn't have made that, is there anywhere that says why those other cards weren't produced?


In most cases, there was a contract dispute with the player, and Topps was unable to produce cards of said players.

In some cases, like the 1967 Topps Nolan Ryan or the 1963 Fleer Pete Rose, it's a matter of a minor league call-up who didn't merit a card.

There are also some HOF players featured on sets when they didn't play (Cobb, Cochrane, Speaker and Walter Johnson on 1956 Topps cards design), and also some Negro league players, for whom a card set was never created for.


Jeltz is right, a lot of players were left off some cards, Musial is probably the biggest star, only on Bowmans in 48-53, then no cards from 54 - 57...then Topps 58-63

A little Post war card history

Gum Inc. ( owned by Warren Bowman ) produced Play Ball baseball cards 1939 -41 . WW 2 stopped production. 1948 Gum Inc becomes Bowman Cards and starts securing contracts with players and producing baseball cards.
Bowman's " exclusive " player contracts make it almost impossible for anyone else to print cards...Leaf Inc tried with one set in 1949.

Topps uses the fact that Bowman's "exclusive" contracts only cover cards distributed with chewing gum to its advantage. The company produces its first sets of baseball cards and distributes them with caramel candy instead of gum in 1951.
Bowman's contracts were 1 or 2 year contracts with the MLB players individually. As the contracts expired, Topps was able to sign many of the star players to market cards with gum.

1952 Topps produced the first set of modern type cards.

A court battle would ensue over this

After a judge initially ruled for Topps, Bowman wins on appeal. In a landmark decision that established an individual's marketing/advertising rights to their own image, the Second Circuit court of appeals sided with Bowman.
Getting a picture of your favorite player during this era often means buying the right brand of cards as many appear in only Bowman or only Topps sets (in fact Stan Musial only appeared on Rawlings "cards" after 1953 until finally appearing on a Topps card in 1958).

As the competition for kids spare change heats up, Bowman decides to produce a full color set - a risky and expensive idea. The company produces some of the most beautiful cards ever in their first series of 1953 and they are the first to use actual color photographs rather than paintings or hand colored black and whites.

Bowman mysterious printed a black and white set later in 1953, rather than a another series of the color cards. It has been conjectured that as the costs of competing and litigating with Topps mounted, they felt the need to cut costs. As yet, no actual proof that this was the reason for the existence of the late '53 B&W set has surfaced and, at this late date, none is likely to emerge.

Topps buys Bowman in 1956 and held exclusive rights to ball cards until 1980
In 1980, however, a court ruled that other companies could produce cards, though they weren't allowed to package their cards with gum. In 1981, Fleer and Donruss produced baseball cards stopping Topps monopoly
Jimmie Foxx " The Beast " 1932
He hit 58 homers and lost as many as seven more to rain-outs . Foxx also slugged .749 with a .469 OBP, 213 hits, 151 runs scored, 169 RBI, 116 walks, and a .364 batting average.
User avatar
ConnieMack
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:13 pm

Postby kruker » Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:37 pm

Nice read. Thanks for that.
"Everybody's a critic. This wasn't an aesthetic endeavor."
User avatar
kruker
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 17164
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: Bucks/NYC


Return to Fantasy Stuff

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest