batmagadanleadoff

Here ya go. [FIMG=666]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52176846258_ee27635b99_h.jpg[/FIMG]

ROCK & ROLL BONUS! While we're waiting on Jon Rauch stuff, a bonus card. The Mets and Braves set up a field to play baseball on the front lawn of some rock and rollers. It's a return to old-timey baseball, where the fans get to watch the game from fair territory. Bring your kiddies! Bring your couch! Guaranteed to have the time of your life! No fringe Met in this post. [FIMG=566]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52170405128_0ce0939630_h.jpg[/FIMG] I dig this one man That's one of my faves. It came to me in stages. The original source photo had an outfield wall in the background. The wall was in two sections. Originally I had put the front side of the CSN album cover on just one section of the wall. Later on, I remembered that that CSN album was a gatefold cover: it opened up and presented a wide view continuous photograph taking up both the front and back sides of the album cover. So I put that whole gatefold cover in there, but only occupying the left side of the outfield wall, which was sectioned off from the rest of the wall. And the more I stared at that version, the more it looked like CS&N were watching the game from the field itself. So I rearranged the placement of the gatefold album to the current state of the card - with the gatefold album cover obscuring the entire outfield wall. Now it looks like the house is on the field. Cool! I did another card in that same style. I'll post it in a few minutes.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=97157 time=1656038394 user_id=68] Jon Rauch was tall. Still is, I'm guessing. But what else youse got on Rauch ....

ROCK & ROLL BONUS! While we're waiting on Jon Rauch stuff, a bonus card. The Mets and Braves set up a field to play baseball on the front lawn of some rock and rollers. It's a return to old-timey baseball, where the fans get to watch the game from fair territory. Bring your kiddies! Bring your couch! Guaranteed to have the time of your life! No fringe Met in this post. [FIMG=566]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52170405128_0ce0939630_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: Andres Torres, no? Yeah. Here's what happened. I was googling Mets news to catch up on the day and came across this article: https://risingapple.com/posts/ny-mets-trade-one-of-kind-angel-pagan-giantshttps://risingapple.com/posts/ny-mets-trade-one-of-kind-angel-pagan-giants And the top of the article had that photo. Thinking the article, and thus the player, were both very recent, I was stumped. And then more stumped when I looked up the Mets uniform number history and saw no recent 56's that made sense. I thought he might be a 2022 fringe Met that I overlooked but that didn't pan out. So I came here for help. If I'd read that article, I woulda figured it out right away and realized that that's an old article.

Who is this Met? This is not a quiz. I'm stumped. [FIMG=666]https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_crop,w_2392,h_1345,x_0,y_0/c_fill,w_2160,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/images%2FGettyImages%2Fmmsport%2F3%2F01g61sxdq633t3nrne8e.jpg[/FIMG]

[FIMG=888]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52167778597_628d8c784a_k.jpg[/FIMG] I had to split the photos into two posts because the forum software provides only one slider per post, instead of individual sliders for each image.

Jon Rauch was tall. Still is, I'm guessing. But what else youse got on Rauch, pictured below on a pair of Lucky Strike Mets 50th anniversary panels from 2012? Use the slider at the bottom of the post for optimum viewing. These babies are wide. [FIMG=888]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52167778582_14eeec80ad_k.jpg[/FIMG]

I think that originally, The Who was scheduled to perform right after Jimi. But Townsend was against that, vehemently so, having seen Jimi live many times in England. So I think that they were allowed to flip a coin to determine which of those two acts would go first. The Who won and decided to go on stage sometime before Jimi.

This thread's never gonna be the same after it was visited upon by the great carny act of Candy and Elmer. He pitches and she wriggles on the ground beneath him, sexually, tantalizingly. Then Candy mounts Elmer and still fully clothed, dry humps Elmer while he throws perfect strikes on the black every single time. Then, Elmer simulates an orgasm by squirting glue from a bottle of Elmer's Glue. For five dollars, you can follow Candy & Elmer into the big tent where, under dim lights, they repeat their act, but this time, naked. And for real. Pity the fringe Met that's gotta follow that act. It's like following Jimi Hendrix at Monterey. Talk about an antit-climactic letdown. And to make matters worse, today's fringe Met is pictured on what is perhaps, TCG's most understated card set ever, the 2011 set, code named Come Fly with Me. So whachyouse got on Val Pascucci? [FIMG=400]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52168704650_63bba4cd13_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Maybe the answer lies not with Candy-O, but with Dessens. It's *obvious* you're on the right track with this thing-- it's that you must find the Elmer that, yes, glues this genius inspiration all together, and brings to lfe this magnificent artistic vision, making it into into the gallery-worthy, jaw-droppingly stunning combination of fringe Mets, iconic rock albums, baseball cards, and big pointy tits that we all know it can be! Seek your answer in Elmer, FOR THE LOVE OF ART. Or, you know, it doesn't even have to be Elmer. Which 2010 Met would pair up the best with Candy? Lucas Duda? He seems too shy for her. She might eat him alive and then take all of his money, like Kathy Kersh on Burt Ward. But they look like a good match, at least visually and that's all we're going for here - the visual. The cards don't talk. Jerry Manuel? Jay Horwitz?

Using the stadium walls for signage is, for me, the option of last resort. It's the easiest card to make in this set because the available photos that lend themselves to this kind of card are plentiful. Once I did two or three of those kinds, it became boring and for the most part, devoid of any creativity. They look nice enough but they're variations on the same theme. BTDT. I'll do them when I'm stuck, or if there's a specific image that I really wanna include in the set, but for the most part, I'm trying to come up with other ideas. Which isn't that easy because the source photos don't always cooperate. Most of the photos available on the web are game action shots and after you've seen a few of them, they become repetitive. The same exact shots from the same exact angles. [FIMG=400]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166708243_a19eaf615f_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=400]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52167186185_81d74ae675_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=400]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166942954_c58f78bd43_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=400]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166957199_46b1492620_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=511]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166868308_1fa0a27084_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: Another option is to put Ms. Moore on the outfield grass. Yeah, but I specifically didn't want that. I wanted it to look like Moore and Dessens were there together. Like some freaky old-timey carnival act where he pitches baseballs while she writhes on the grass in a sexually provocative manner.

Unlike the Mets, the Astros are wearing 60th anniversary commemorative patches on their uniforms.

Jesus H. Christ. I'm missing the whole game. Totally forgot it's a day game.

Edgy MD wrote: Another option is to put Ms. Moore on the outfield grass. Yeah, but I specifically didn't want that. I wanted it to look like Moore and Dessens were there together.

The problem with the contact sheet images, at least as I see it, is that the images aren't instantly recognizable. Most rock and roll fans, especially those that are, more or less, in our age group, will recognize the Vargas illustration immediately and know the source. That Cars album cover is iconic and widely considered to be one of Rock and Roll's great album covers. The photographs -- not so much. In fact, Vargas had tinkered with the photos in arriving at his final drawing so much, that it's hard to even make the connection that the actual model is the same person in the illustration.

Edgy MD wrote: Your point is valid, but it's what I'd go for. Here's the contact sheet Sr. Vargas allegedly used for reference. https://postpunkmonk.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/candy-0reference-slides.jpg> I made this rough draft, below, before I saw your contact sheet post. Apparently, I was drafting and you were posting more or less simultaneously. Here it is: [FIMG=400]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52165828378_d228627526_h.jpg[/FIMG] This doesn't really work. Plus, three sides of the car are missing, not just two. So putting the car in a corner of the card wouldn't solve the missing car thing.

Edgy MD wrote: I'd put the car and model behind him on the infield, and his name in the lower left hand corner. But you do you. But the car's an outline illustration. Don't you think it should be an actual car for your idea to work? Also, there's only the hood of the car to work with. The car would have to be high up on the card, against the card border(s), appearing as if the missing part of the car got cut off or cropped out by the edge(s) of the card.

Edgy MD wrote: I like it in spirit, but the layout composition that places the model underneath his butthole is kinda kreepy, to say nothing of her childlike proportions to him. Slightly, ever so slightly bigger model. Noticeable? Meaningful? Don't forget - Dessens is a very chunky guy, and he's about six feet tall, too. New [FIMG=444]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52165767173_2e9bd27b7d_h.jpg[/FIMG] Old [FIMG=444]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52164122233_3eeed5a327_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: I like it in spirit, but the layout composition that places the model underneath his butthole is kinda kreepy, to say nothing of her childlike proportions to him. [FIMG=444]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52164122233_3eeed5a327_h.jpg[/FIMG] I think the card pretty much works out but, yeah, there's definitely a subjective element to all of this. We could've put the model farther back in the photo, say closer to the infield dirt, and then it might've worked out more to your liking. She wouldn't be so close to Dessens, and objects appear smaller the farther back they are, which would allow us to keep these proportions. But there were two design challenges to constructing this card. First, we wanted her as close to Dessens as possible in order to strengthen the connection between pitcher and model ... to make it appear as if each was not only aware of the other's presence, but as if they were both on the field together in unison. Yes, she appears to be looking up Dessens's "butthole", but that was kinda by design. (Design!, Get it?) We embraced the so-called creepiness of it. We're TCG and we don't necessarily strive for wholesomeness all of the time! Also, we wanted the model to appear fully, that is, not cut off by the borders of the card. We wanted to see her entire body. We felt, for example, that it was crucial to see both of her shoes. To have the card borders crop off part of her lower leg would diminish her sexiness ... her visual appeal. And that explains the model's size. (It's not really model, but a Vargas Girl illustration, right?) We think the proportions work out because there's no way of telling, at least from the card, how tall the model is supposed to be. On the Cars album cover, you can estimate the model's height because she's laying on an automobile, and so the the car is a reference point to determine the model's height. You know how big the car oughtta be and so you can take it from there. But on the card, there are no reference points like an automobile hood. And there's no requirement that the model need to be as tall as Dessens. I took a closer look after you posted, and I was trying to remember what I was thinking when I made this card a few years ago, and I remembered, again, that I wanted the model to appear on the card fully. She could be a tad larger, but then her legs would extend beyond the borders where a part of her leg would disappear. So that's the story.

I vaguely remember banner holding fans being told to take down their "critical of Mets management" banners during the Madoff Mets era. If I'm remembering right, it's not surprising. The Wilpons really did suck. The way Citi Field is designed, it's impossible for fans to walk a banner all along the fan section, starting, for example, at one outfield corner, and walking the entire seating area to end up at the other outfield corner. This was a neat feature of Shea Stadium.

Candy-??? [FIMG=444]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2606/9196/products/thecars-candy-o_x700.png?v=1624145833[/FIMG] [FIMG=444]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52164122233_3eeed5a327_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: The Glue Gun. I wanna say this chubby palooka was in his moment, the best reliever on the entire club. Wore no 64. Me too. I can't recall the specific minutia, but I remember liking Dessens. Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Also how come we've never seen the Rock m Roll set before You haven't seen the majority of the TCG stuff. This thread is an excuse to open the vaults a little bit.

Good Ruggianoing. I remember the granny. And here it is: [media=youtube]ouahz614V90[/media] Lotsa fringy Mets with big homers for their legacies. Guillermo Heredia did it a few years ago during the short covid season. And this might end up being Nick Plummer's legacy. We're gonna expand our definition of "Fringe Met" for the purposes of this thread because if I keep on posting players who were three week/10 at bat Mets, everybody's gonna mostly get stumped most of the time. So we're now gonna define a fringe Met to include any Met for which no MLB licensed baseball card (non-regional) exists. Our newest fringe Met was a two year Met, a reliever mainly, who never pitched more than a coupl'a dozen innings in any of his two Mets seasons. Elmers Dessens rocks the TCG Rock and Roll set, below. Whachyouse got? [FIMG=500]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52164122233_3eeed5a327_h.jpg[/FIMG]