Stan Musial and 57 Topps Team

mintacular · #1 03-11-2012, 10:05 PM

I noticed he is pictured on the '57 Topps Team Cardinals card but does not have card of his own due to his contractual obligation I think to Rawlings and/or Bowman that prevented him from being in Topps sets 52-57. So my question is: When stars like this did not have a Topps regular issue do they still always appear on the team cards? Thanks, for your comments on this topic

ALR-bishop · #2 03-12-2012, 07:56 AM

Not sure Patrick but based on some research I did on Topps and Fleer "exclusive" contracts I do not think appearances like the Musial 57 team card would have been precluded. The Topps exclusive contracts precluded players who signed them from signing other contracts permitting the distribution of their individual image with gum, candy or confections ( hence the Fleer cookies and Leaf marbles). It would not have prevented another distributor of cards from using a team picture they presumably licensed from the club involved and or MLB that happened to include the player.

I don't know about Rawlings but the Bowman contracts were similar to the Topps contracts in the years before Topps bought them out, which is why individual players often only appeared in one set or the other. ( although not all players would agree to the exclusive contracts from either, even though the money involved in such contracts, at least prior to the arrival of Marvin Miller, was inconsequential)

By the way, in looking at the contract issue I could not find any indication that the 1963 Fleer set was halted due to litigation by Topps . Fleer could have signed most players to contracts allowing distribution of their cards with cookies. It is my understanding the 1963 Fleer set was not extended because sales of the first "series" were disappointing. Kids were already hooked on the idea they gum was needed to be in a pack of baseball cards.

bunst · #3 03-12-2012, 07:59 AM

My understanding is yes. Contract or not, all players were included in the team cards. I don't believe any individual player received compensation for being on a team card, just cards that they posed for.

Tomman1961 · #4 03-12-2012, 10:21 AM

One of my previous posts talked about 1973 Topps Staub. He had no individual Topps card. I have not looked, but you can be sure he is on the team card. Now, look at Tommie Agee's card. That is clearly Rusty Staub running in from right field. The picture is Shea Stadium. All the fielders are airbrushed from Mets to Astros. Card #420.

Tomman1961 · #5 03-12-2012, 10:34 AM

To elaborate, I remember getting a mailing from a dealer in 1973 when I was 12 years old. It said flat out that RS had contractual agreement problems with Topps, "so no card of him". He does appear on the Mets Team card. OK-- if that was given to Topps by MLB. But-BUT---- Topps clearly uses his "likeness" (flat out a photo of him) on #420.
Go to 1974. No Willie Mays individual card, but he will appear in the WS subset (#473?). I guess they paid Willie for being the subject of THAT card.
I am wondering if there is some kind of clause that Topps does not have to pay you/contract with you, if you "happen" to be in a shot. Like a team pix, or in the background.
1958 Ed Bouchee was pulled, but he appears on the Phillies Team Card.

ALR-bishop · #6 03-12-2012, 11:11 AM

Same issue as the team cards. Topps did not purport to put out a Staub card specific to him in 1973. The fact he appears in the background of another card but is not identified as the subject of the card would not violate the "exclusive" provisions in the contracts I have seen ( Topps/ Bowman/Fleer), but I do not know with whom or if Staub may have had such a contract with some other company in 73 or what it provided. And it may be that there was no other contract and Staub simply did not sign a license agreement with Topps that year. If so, only he could pursue a violation of the use of his likeness, and trying to block production or seek compensation because he was an unidentified individual in an action card would have been a tough road ...which he apparently did not pursue, or if did was unsuccessful.

Bouchee was not a contract issue. He was pulled by Topps after a criminal related legal problem excluded him from playing MLB that year

Tomman1961 · #7 03-12-2012, 11:23 AM

ALR-bishop.
Man, you know your stuff. Thanks for the insight. Looks to me like you have seen some contracts? For me, it clears up the issue totally.I thank you. As a 12 year old Topps nut, and Rusty Staub fanactic, I was not happy with no 1973 card. Until I stumbled upon Agee. I think Rusty had more important things on his mind than to go after a thing like this. Again-thanks.
-Tom.
(BTW-and maybe for a different post-has anyone ever "claimed" to have had a 1958 Bouchee? as far as you know.)