56 Topps Mantle background
 

Didn't want to highjack another post so I thought I'd ask this question in a new one. The background of the Mantle card has been duplicated but I can't figure out who Topps would bother to do this. It's not as if the original looks bad. Anyone have any ideas? I'm guessing the original photo they used must have been cropped on the right side such that they had to create more fans to fit the card size?

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere a search with the word "Mantle" brings up a few posts to say the least...

1956 Mantle
 

Bill-- I think I have seen a prior discussion of this photo, but not sure if it was here. I will see if I can run it down

I was involved with that discussion. It had something to do with star players apperaing on other's cards. Like the 1956 Aaron is Willie Mays sliding into home. I thought this Mantle card was Maris making the catch-but the point is that the photo is cropped and duplicated if you look close at the fans. Sorry-not sure why Topps needed to do this. Maybe look up my posts-something like-Stars on other Stars cards?????????

Pictures in Pictures
 

Hey Tom, I think you may be right. I remember that thread. It went on for awhile. Hopefully one of us or somebody can locate it

I did an advanced search of TOMMAN1961 and STAUB.
I started the thread as 'Stars shown on other players cards". Within the thread is talk of this Mantle.

Thanks Guys, I appreciate it! I figured it was discussed before as I'm sure you can imagine any search that has the word "Mantle" in it gets just a few results.;)

Looks to me like a matter of format.

The original photo was too narrow to "fill" the background behind the portrait without the leaping Mick being obscured.

Considering what graphics artists had to work with back in the day, the Topps guys did a great job.

I agree Bob, a beautiful card & set!

Hmmmn, the photo editor actually cropped the heads of three guys on the left side of the original and inserted them on the right side, adjacent to the left side of Mantle's portrait. But, it's still odd, since that area of the original would have remained just empty seats...could that be the reason - just a goofy sense that the stands must be filled to make the photo more dramatic?

Pardon the pun, but nice catch!
He basically took the people standing on the left side of the picture and placed them on the right side of the painting. Weird thing is, in the painting there is more of those people seen than what appears in the photograph (arms, etc.). It could be that the artist just extrapolated to fill out the image, but it makes me believe the original photo could be wider than the one shown.

What I want to know is, did he catch it?