Something about the 52' Topps Adcock that is driving me nuts

[Brianruns10]

So I've been eying the '52 Adcock for my Topps set recently, and for each card I buy I like to research it a bit. And in reading up on this card and the player, I found something unusual, that has me stumped. I'm sure there is a simple answer, and this may be a dumb question, but I'd appreciate help, 'cause it is driving me nuts!

The issue is this: in '52 Adcock was still with the Reds, and the Topps card reflects this. However, I found the black-and-white photo used by Topps as the basis for their color image, and his hat has a big fat M for Milwaukee on it! The two poses are identical, except Topps erased the M and put a C on his cap, and inserted a background.

So how can this be that Topps would use a photo of a player wearing the hat of the team he had not yet begun to play for? Obviously they didn't time travel to get it, so what is the answer? Had Adcock already been traded by late '52, and photographed in his new Milkwaukee regalia, and Topps was "backdating" the card (along the lines of their practice of not having 1952 stats on the card, so they could resell the cards past '52). Or does the M stand for something other than Milwaukee, and it's just a coincidence? A third solution...? My thanks to whoever clears up this puzzle for me!

http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Cards/Baseball/1952/Topps/347/Joe_Adcock/1799606

http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Cards/Baseball/1947-66/Exhibits/2B/Joe_Adcock_SIG/1794578

[ALR-bishop]

Interesting point. His 52 was a high number card, presumably produced late in the 52 season since those cards hit the market in late summer and did not sell well at the time. The excess was supposedly destroyed after a period of storage ( legend says deep sixed), presumably after the decision was made to proceed with the 53 set. But if Adcock was not traded until after the season ended, not sure that helps explain anything.

Topps is famous for re using old photos in it's sets, but as you point out, using next year's photo would be novel.

Dave Hornish ?

[Bob Lemke]

I think the Topps card was worked from a correct photo; it's the exhibit card that was airbrushed to put the "M" on the cap. The M really isn't an exact match for the Milwaukee letter.

[toppcat]

I think Bob is correct, the later Exhibit card has been altered. I am pretty sure Topps licensed the photos in the Red and Blue Back and regular '52 sets from another company in 1951 and into 1952 but am not certain they did so with the highs and semi-highs. They eventually acquired the company that owned the photos (it was not Players Enterprises, which consisted of Topps directors and employees) so they either licensed some photography later on to ESCO or the rights were owned by the photographer. Either way is possible I think. I wonder if other Exhibits use photos from Topps cards?

[Brianruns10]

That's brilliant! I think you nailed it. I'm a bit ashamed it hadn't occurred to me they airbrushed it, given I do a fair bit of photograph and photoshop work. Given the photo is several generations away, it would better hide the airbrushing, I suppose.

Thanks! I can stop fixating on it now.

PS: Bought a beautiful 52 Adcock today. PSA 6 with perfect LR centering, and damn close top/bottom. Corners beautiful, could be a 6.5. It will be a beautiful addition to the registry set!

[steve B]

The trade was Feb 16, 1953.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/adcocjo01.shtml

So that should clinch it for the exhibits being the airbrushed ones.

Steve B

[Volod]

So, that leaves the question of why the Exhibit used an old Topps photo instead of an actual photo of Adcock in a Milwaukee uniform. What is it - just a head shot?