1966 & 1968 Mantles - Same Photoshoot??

[JollyElm]

It was mentioned in the pickup thread how similar the 1966 and 1968 Mantle Topps cards were, so I decided to put something together for everyone's edification.

This gif was created because I have always been convinced that the 1966 and 1968 shots were taken only moments apart at The Stadium. One with the stands in the background and then, "Hey, Mick, we need some better aesthetics. Let's shift this around a little to see the blue skies and a bit of the skyline. Winner! Winner! Chicken dinner!" The stance is so ridiculously similar that it almost seems like he was standing on a 'Lazy Susan' and the photog simply spun him a tad to face the other direction.

Just focus your eyes on the dark shirt in the foreground covering his arm/elbow and see how perfectly the two match. That's what I concentrated on in making this (albeit quick) comparison. (You can also see the identical areas of shirt hanging in front of his belt and matching folds and wrinkles all over the place.)



Don't want to get too far ahead of my skis, but I say case closed!

[luciobar1980]

Heyyy, I was the one who mentioned that in the pickup thread! Totally, seen now as a GIF, a few of those folds can't just be coincidence, IMO. Also, look at that one stripe shape on his crotch.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Very well done.

[Rookiemonster]

No I don’t think so

[scmavl]

100% There is even a pushed in area on the right side of his cap that is the same on both. Eagle eyes, fellas!

[Bigdaddy]

Gotta be one after the other. Too many similarities in the uni (folds, pinstripes, undershirt, etc) to be years apart.

[clydepepper]

I've always had the same opinion about the '65 & '68 Mays cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I've always had the same opinion about the '65 & '68 Mays cards.

Topps also used the same photo for the 54-56 Mays I believe. Odd that they did this twice for Mays. Are the 66 and 69 also the same pic cropped differently?

And for 54-56 Aaron.

And 54 (250)-56 Ted.

[CW]

Wow, good eye, Lucio, and that's a cool gif, Darren. It almost looks like the exact same image of the Mick when comparing the folds and pinstripes, but the head and bat are in slightly different positions.

But the thing that messes with your mind is how different the two backgrounds are. If it was 2 separate photographers at a slightly different angle, it does not make sense that the backgrounds are so different.

This is why Darren's "Mick on a lazy susan" is the only logical conclusion.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I always thought they were taken the same day as well just a little time apart due to the change in the sun's direction casting different shadows on him.

[geosluggo]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Topps also used the same photo for the 54-56 Mays I believe. Odd that they did this twice for Mays. Are the 66 and 69 also the same pic cropped differently?

And for 54-56 Aaron.

And 54 (250)-56 Ted.

Not just the ‘54-‘56 Topps Mays. Red Man and Bowman used the same pic as well.

[Summersolstice1962]

Look at how much fatter his face looks in 66.

[JollyElm]

I don't know if people are being facetious or if they are just pathetic contrarians or whatever. A couple of people (I'm sure the same folks who think every single skinny white guy in an old photograph is Joe Jackson) PM'ed me to say those Micks are not even close to being from the same day. Really????? My gawd!! Wake up.

So here we go again. I took the same two cards and (although they are clearly not taken from the same angle) I matched up as best I could the curved pinstripes emanating down from his belt buckle (and hitting the bottom border between the 'M' and 'A' in "MANTLE' on the 1966 card). So stare there as the image fades away and you'll see how everything matches. CLEAR AS FREAKING DAY, the wrinkles, lines, shirt draped over his belt, etc., etc., are virtually one and the same.



I'm done staring at Mickey's crotch, so if this doesn't convince you nothing ever will. Elm out!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Look at the line on his forearm. And some of the squiggles in the lines on the pants. It's about as certain as anything I've seen.

[Mark70Z]

Same day...

Great job by the way w/the gif. Since this one has reached a conclusion let’s revisit any B. Robby cards that may have variations. OR you can work on the Orioles picture pack photos of the greatest third baseman of all time and study all the cropping difference, of the same photo, and definitively once and for all put the correct year on each and every variation. Whatcha think?!?

[gonzo]

There is actually a reason for this photo reuse - during 67/68, the MLBPA was taking control of the licensing for baseball cards via a photo boycott. Topps had the rights to print the cards due to previously-signed contracts, but the players refused to pose for new photos. So in many cases, earlier photos were used.

That also explains why some teams, like the Red Sox, did not have Topps team cards in 1968.

https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2017/...cott-of-topps/

[ALR-bishop]

Topps tried to strong arm the new guy Marvin Miller and lost. Keith Olbermann did a good article for SCD about photo reuse in this period.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Same day...

Great job by the way w/the gif. Since this one has reached a conclusion let’s revisit any B. Robby cards that may have variations. OR you can work on the Orioles picture pack photos of the greatest third baseman of all time and study all the cropping difference, of the same photo, and definitively once and for all put the correct year on each and every variation. Whatcha think?!?

Mark-- I think you are a borderline facetious contrarian

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

OR you can work on the Orioles picture pack photos of the greatest third baseman of all time and study all the cropping difference, of the same photo, and definitively once and for all put the correct year on each and every variation.

I never realized that Mike Schmidt played for the Orioles....