MLB logo (1960 Topps Mantle)

[frankh8147]

Hello!

I'm not sure if this topic has already been discussed (I couldn't find any threads on it) but I have always wondered, was the MLB logo designed after the 1960 Topps All star Mickey Mantle? It always looked very similar to me.

Thanks!
-Frank

[swarmee]

Designed in 1968 according to wikipedia. Definitely looks similar, although the elbow protrusion seems to be the biggest difference.

[swarmee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_..._Baseball_logo
I had always heard Killebrew, and that's what people asked the designer. However, the Mantle is definitely close enough to be considered one of the sourced images.

[BLongley]

Similar indeed, but I believe the logo based on an image of Harmon Killebrew

https://www.businessinsider.com/harm...-legend-2011-5

[frankh8147]

I see - I was looking at the sleeve, hands on the bat, curve of the bat, physique, nose, hat, and where the image is cut off.. but I never noticed the elbow! I do see the difference now.

Thanks!
-Frank

[JollyElm]

It looks like a dead ringer for Pete Rose, but I have always heard it was 'based' (pun intended) on a photo of 'Killer.'

[JollyElm]

Time for a bit of fun with a logic tangent:
The logo was obviously designed so the player could be perceived to be either a left handed or right handed batter (I have always seen a righty), but logically speaking this 'batter' is clearly a lefty. Why? If the graphic was an actual photograph, then you would have to take into account the position of the baseball. If the batter was a righty, the ball would be in the background (and based on perspective and distance, appearing smaller than normal), and conversely a lefty would have the ball in the foreground (appearing slightly larger). (Of course, it's assumed the pitch is over the plate and not way inside, way outside or about to hit the batter.) If the ball in the logo was in the background, the size wouldn't match up at all. In reality, it would be much too big, the size of a softball, whereas a ball in the foreground (closest to the viewer) would make it much closer to the actual size it should be. Conclusion: left hander.

[frankh8147]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Time for a bit of fun with a logic tangent:
The logo was obviously designed so the player could be perceived to be either a left handed or right handed batter (I have always seen a righty), but logically speaking this 'batter' is clearly a lefty. Why? If the graphic was an actual photograph, then you would have to take into account the position of the baseball. If the batter was a righty, the ball would be in the background (and based on perspective and distance, appearing smaller than normal), and conversely a lefty would have the ball in the foreground (appearing slightly larger). (Of course, it's assumed the pitch is over the plate and not way inside, way outside or about to hit the batter.) If the ball in the logo was in the background, the size wouldn't match up at all. In reality, it would be much too big, the size of a softball, whereas a ball in the foreground (closest to the viewer) would make it much closer to the actual size it should be. Conclusion: left hander.

Fun 'tangent'! That's interesting and based on that, I agree, the batter was a lefty...unless...he was a switch hitter!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by frankh8147

Fun 'tangent'! That's interesting and based on that, I agree, the batter was a lefty...unless...he was a switch hitter!

The bat and knuckles of the hand are behind the body. It is a righty and the profile looks like Killebrew.

[jthorst75]

Crazy, I was always under the impression that it was Clemente. Not sure if I heard that or read about it...

[JollyElm]

And my logic also applies to the bat. The handle looks pretty thick, and therefore it is in the foreground, closer to the viewer. If this batter was a righty, the bat would be in the background, further away from the viewer, and would thus appear thinner/smaller than 'normal.' Again, lefty.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And my logic also applies to the bat. The handle looks pretty thick, and therefore it is in the foreground, closer to the viewer. If this batter was a righty, the bat would be in the background, further away from the viewer, and would thus appear thinner/smaller than 'normal.' Again, lefty.

The dudes a righty... As you probably know Brooks was unable to do the photoshoot for the logo that day so they opted, begrudgingly at that, for Killer 😬.

I agree with what you stated before that they designed the logo to view either a righty or lefty. I’ve pretty much seen a righty, but when I try I can see the lefty as well. As you probably are aware Killer used a “pretty thick” bat and he was definitely a righty.

[JollyElm]

From the link on the first page of this thread:
Creation[edit]
According to Dior, the logo was created in a single afternoon. Contrary to popular belief, the silhouette was not modeled on future Hall of Famer Harmon Killebrew,[1] or any specific player[2] but was drawn with reference to photographs of several players.[3] The silhouette was chosen specifically because of its ambiguity: the batter could be right- or left-handed and of any ethnic background.[3]

[jchcollins]

Growing up I always understood it to have been based on Killebrew, but then sometime later I saw on some MLB blog where supposedly MLB claimed that was not true. I have no idea. Will agree the '60 Mantle AS looks like a plausible candidate.

[frankh8147]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Growing up I always understood it to have been based on Killebrew, but then sometime later I saw on some MLB blog where supposedly MLB claimed that was not true. I have no idea. Will agree the '60 Mantle AS looks like a plausible candidate.

In the last few days, I read about 10 articles on this with half saying it was Killebrew and half saying it wasn't - it does look like him though!

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by frankh8147

I see - I was looking at the sleeve, hands on the bat, curve of the bat, physique, nose, hat, and where the image is cut off.. but I never noticed the elbow! I do see the difference now.

Thanks!
-Frank

Ears a perfect match with Joe Jackson

[JollyElm]

Time for me to take a deep breath and find my happy place...
This thread reminds me of each and every thread in the memorabilia section where someone asks people to identify the player(s) in a picture, and the responses are so ridiculously off that I don't know what to do with myself. Apparently every picture taken early in the last century had Joe Jackson or Ty Cobb in it. Oy vey.

Please know that there is no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, but the MLB silhouette doesn't look like Killebrew at all, come on!!! How can anyone possibly believe that?? Seriously, what am I missing??? He had a round, maybe bulbous, head. This 'player' has a thin, long head with a prominently pointy nose. It portrays a slender guy. No chubbiness in the face (no offense, Killer). The artist apparently said it was an amalgam of players, but if it was based mostly on an actual player, it was Pete Rose. It's basically a dead ringer for him (and his head). Maybe it's a generational thing, but I literally can't understand how anyone looks at the MLB logo and DOESN'T immediately see Charlie Hustle (random pictures from the 60's grabbed quickly from the internet)...

gettyimages-177153497-1024x1024.jpg
th.jpg
signed_pete_rose_autographed_8x10_photo_cincinnati_reds_psa_dna_certified_p168787.jpg
pete_rose_1966_07_01.jpg
58569-11Fr.jpg

...end of rant, and another deep breath taken.

[nolemmings]

I always thought it was Killebrew, but I was an impressionable Minnesota kid who saw him bat so many times it may have just seemed logical.



Harmon had a classic but somewhat distinct batting pose, with the shoulder and elbow generally kept a bit high and the chin tucked into the sleeve/logo area when early in the AB. The logo seemed to capture that to me. The only player who I've seen bat like that since was Matt Williams.