batmagadanleadoff

[fimg=555]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/26040717884_34f30c1bc0_o.jpg[/fimg] You could see how Topps was determined to crop out the faces of those fans following Mazeroski to home plate while, obviously, keeping Maz himself in the shot. With today's tools, you could take out the fans in about a minute - cleanly - and then you'd have a shot that's framed or cropped so that the top border isn't right on the top of the head of Mazeroski. As the focal point of that shot, Maz's whole body should've been in that crop, including his right arm, extended in the air. OE: The more I stare at the Maz b&w, the more I believe that Maz's right arm is the key element in the pic. They could have done that in those days too. It would have taken a few more steps in the process. You should make a version of that, how it should be. Cause, yes, it's a travesty that Maz was so cropped. What a wonderful photo ruined. Shame on Topps. It's funny you write that because as I was re-reading my post, after it was sent, I thought the same thing. The artists could have hand painted grass and dirt over where the fans were -- if they wanted to invest the time. As for new versions of that card, depends what you mean by a new version. If you wanted to reproduce the exact feel of those '61 cards, you'd be the person for that job. You can colorize to make the b&w photo look as if was photographed and developed using the same technology and equipment available 55 years ago. I can make a color card from that photo, but it'll have another vibe. So here's another version of the Mazeroski WS card. I didn't color it all the way through, but you get the idea of how that card would look if Maz's body was left whole and uncut. [fimg=777]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1538/26599794531_44e694d784_o.jpg[/fimg][fimg=444]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/26040717884_34f30c1bc0_o.jpg[/fimg]

[fimg=555]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/26040717884_34f30c1bc0_o.jpg[/fimg] You could see how Topps was determined to crop out the faces of those fans following Mazeroski to home plate while, obviously, keeping Maz himself in the shot. With today's tools, you could take out the fans in about a minute - cleanly - and then you'd have a shot that's framed or cropped so that the top border isn't right on the top of the head of Mazeroski. As the focal point of that shot, Maz's whole body should've been in that crop, including his right arm, extended in the air. OE: The more I stare at the Maz b&w, the more I believe that Maz's right arm is the key element in the pic. They could have done that in those days too. It would have taken a few more steps in the process. You should make a version of that, how it should be. Cause, yes, it's a travesty that Maz was so cropped. What a wonderful photo ruined. Shame on Topps. It's funny you write that because as I was re-reading my post, after it was sent, I thought the same thing. The artists could have hand painted grass and dirt over where the fans were -- if they wanted to invest the time. As for new versions of that card, depends what you mean by a new version. If you wanted to reproduce the exact feel of those '61 cards, you'd be the person for that job. You can colorize to make the b&w photo look as if was photographed and developed using the same technology and equipment available 55 years ago. I can make a color card from that photo, but it'll have another vibe.

[fimg=555]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/26040717884_34f30c1bc0_o.jpg[/fimg] You could see how Topps was determined to crop out the faces of those fans following Mazeroski to home plate while, obviously, keeping Maz himself in the shot. With today's tools, you could take out the fans in about a minute - cleanly - and then you'd have a shot that's framed or cropped so that the top border isn't right on the top of the head of Mazeroski. As the focal point of that shot, Maz's whole body should've been in that crop, including his right arm, extended in the air. OE: The more I stare at the Maz b&w, the more I believe that Maz's right arm is the key element in the pic.

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: The original '67 WS cards resembled a TV set (as did next year's WS cards). I wonder why Topps used B&W images for its '67 WS cards. I'm pretty sure that by '67, every prime time network TV show was in color. Maybe it was because more than half of the viewing public still didn't own color TV sets? Who knows? Maybe there was no reason at all. Maybe Topps saved a little bit of money on the production side by using B&W images instead of color? Maybe it was because the '66 WS itself aired in B&W? Probably all of the above. Probably. Maybe. Those "color" WS cards you posted one above, as you probably know, are not from color photogrpahs, but from b&w's that were hand color painted. Hand painted because there was no Photoshop, or PC's 50-60 years ago. I know that in the late 1940's, most color baseball cards were hand painted from b&w, usually team issued, photos. That's because in the late '40's, it was cheaper to hand paint the cards than to produce cards from color photographs. I wonder if that was still the case 15-20 years later. [fimg=444]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ce/c2/9a/cec29ab59f95016c21d55d568b592736.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=555]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/26040717884_34f30c1bc0_o.jpg[/fimg]

Harrelson SS Millan 2B Jones LF Staub RF Milner 1B Schneck CF Garrett 3B Grote C Koosman P

Good work here, as usual. But that word "projected" -- whaddya think?

The original '67 WS cards resembled a TV set (as did next year's WS cards). I wonder why Topps used B&W images for its '67 WS cards. I'm pretty sure that by '67, every prime time network TV show was in color. Maybe it was because more than half of the viewing public still didn't own color TV sets? Who knows? Maybe there was no reason at all. Maybe Topps saved a little bit of money on the production side by using B&W images instead of color? Maybe it was because the '66 WS itself aired in B&W?

Heritage: I did get a World Series card and I almost wish I didn't, because now I'll want all of these. Very kool but very awful quality B&W image used on this one. There's a color variation of that card. Either it's very rare, or some seller's crazy, because the ask for that card on ebay is $129.99. [fimg=666]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1701/26535934422_111d32f2be_o.jpg[/fimg] Here's the whole Topps Heritage 2016 WS set. It's extremely Royal-centric -- even more so than you'd expect given that the Royals won the damn thing four games to one. Game three - the Mets lone win in the Series - isn't included in the set. [fimg=555]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1715/26025689483_aef77a4f67_o.jpg[/fimg]

Heritage: I did get a World Series card and I almost wish I didn't, because now I'll want all of these. Very kool but very awful quality B&W image used on this one. There's a color variation of that card. Either it's very rare, or some seller's crazy, because the ask for that card on ebay is $129.99. [fimg=666]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1701/26535934422_111d32f2be_o.jpg[/fimg]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: [fimg=477]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1686/26517387895_f047acc058_o.jpg[/fimg] With successive two-for-four games, Murph's average, ridiculous as it is, continues to climb. [fimg=555]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1580/26535954306_f81c6caff6_o.jpg[/fimg]

Neil Walker's hardly living up to his name: he hasn't drawn a base on balls all season long.

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: TransMonk wrote: [youtube]m3a4OTh2Y8w[/youtube] Whew. I don't feel so bad, or dumb, anymore. Very brave of you to declare, what with Duran Duran coming after you with torches. Torches is nothing. I get that once a week here.

TransMonk wrote: [youtube]m3a4OTh2Y8w[/youtube] Whew. I don't feel so bad, or dumb, anymore.

cooby wrote: Trying to figure out this thread title all day, Duh, cooby Maybe you can help a brother out. I'm still trying to figure this one out. Boy will I feel dumb when this is all revealed.

[fimg=444:b4m556to]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1686/26517387895_f047acc058_o.jpg[/fimg:b4m556to]

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: No one's making Dennis Ribant Pirates cards anymore. How many times can youse look at that same '67 Topps Ribant card? It's the only one of him in a Pitt uni. WhatRyatAlkin bout? You could be making one. [fimg=200]http://www.mainlineautographs.com/images/product_pics/ribantpit_20080904727.gif[/fimg] Even using the same pic can be made more interesting. [fimg=400]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7C07NFC_zf0/Vwnz37nN9VI/AAAAAAAAmlw/vE-Gf1-PhW4k_XKTfxSMkKoy4yS9w6xtwCCo/s720-Ic42/85mfcHorzHernandez-z16.png[/fimg] [fimg=333]http://www.mainlineautographs.com/images/product_pics/EPSON224_20130726912.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=444]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1539/26423928822_15022c3239_o.jpg[/fimg][fimg=444]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1631/26516412405_aeca28539a_o.jpg[/fimg]

Your other interlopers are Jerry Hinsley, Bob Rauch and surprisingly, Harry Chiti who, it turns out, never played for the Indians -- either before they sent him to the Mets, or after the Mets sent him back to Cleveland. Thank you for playing. I guess.

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: Here's what this thread would like if this forum were a Cleveland Indians forum... Very kool twist. If I made these threads in that Bizarro style, a lotta your cards would turn up in the opening posts. Well, not this season, but some season you should go full bizarro. The season after we win it all 2 seasons in a row. It might be this season. I was thinking that for this season, only doing these threads for some of the AL teams that the Mets are gonna play. I've been doing these for over four seasons now and everyone's seen the NL team cards too much. No one's making Dennis Ribant Pirates cards anymore. How many times can youse look at that same '67 Topps Ribant card? It's the only one of him in a Pitt uni. I'm getting bored ... and I think that youse are bored of this routine also.

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Here's what this thread would like if this forum were a Cleveland Indians forum... Very kool twist. If I made these threads in that Bizarro style, a lotta your cards would turn up in the opening posts.

I only post it close in time to the first game of a Mets series at Philly.

[fimg=444:30swfrjz]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1704/26400925842_d20fac0930_o.jpg[/fimg:30swfrjz]

There's still an unsolved interloper up there somewhere.

Here's what this thread would like if this forum were a Cleveland Indians forum: I could go on, but you get the idea.

Edgy MD wrote: I absolutely didn't think that. On second read, I'm not so sure I know where you're coming from. Do you generally think that the Wilpons deserve to get LOLMetsed when they do, or that's it's unwarranted bad press?

http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/16300/f1_t16334.shtml