1968 & 1968 Topps Houston - no logos?

[ALR-bishop]

The 1968 and 1969 sets are populated with older photos from prior years. Coming expansion in 69 may have impacted photo taking in 1968 ( as many as 100 players would be changing uniforms) but more likely it was Marvin Miller, who had organized the players against management....and also against Topps and their paltry player contacts. The 69 set is packed with newer players in their minor league uniforms. Also airbrushed and capless photos.

A deal was apparently reached between Topps and the MLPA at some point because beginning with the 5th series of the 69 set, what had been outdated, capless, airbrushed photos in much of 68 and the first 4 series of 69, became updated new images in the last two.

So I think expansion uncertainties and Marvin Miller are the reason for some lousy cards in 1968 and 1969. I once read an SCD article by Olbermann who documented a lot of this.

[Runscott]

Thanks!

[toppcat]

The lack of the Astros name in Topps sets of the mid to late 60's was due to a trademark dispute between the Astros and Monsanto, owners of the Astroturf trademark. Once resolved, Topps was able to use the team name again.

I have details here: http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...hat-topps.html

[ALR-bishop]

Good point Dave. I remember at the time ( was 18 in 1968), my pre legal days, thinking surely Monsanto does not really think people are going to confuse the Houston Astronots with the Houston Astrturffers . But that was the astrturf heyday. And Monsanto was St Louis based so the matter got a lot of attention there as well as Houston

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by toppcat

The lack of the Astros name in Topps sets of the mid to late 60's was due to a trademark dispute between the Astros and Monsanto, owners of the Astroturf trademark. Once resolved, Topps was able to use the team name again.

I have details here: http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...hat-topps.html

What is interesting in the 65 set, is in the first series, the Houston player's cards show just "Houston" with an emblem of Texas on the banner and the players have the ".45s" on the hats. In the later series of this set, the remaining Houston cards have "Houston Astros" on the card's banner, but the player's hats are either plain or they are not wearing hats, with one exception, a late series tri player RC with the Astro logo on 2/3 players.

[Section115]

Originally Posted by toppcat

The lack of the Astros name in Topps sets of the mid to late 60's was due to a trademark dispute between the Astros and Monsanto, owners of the Astroturf trademark. Once resolved, Topps was able to use the team name again.

I have details here: http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...hat-topps.html

I have serious doubts about the accuracy of this article (which actually refers to another article on the PSA website I believe). "Chemgrass" was the original name of the playing surface. It was renamed to "Astroturf" AFTER both the domed stadium AND the team were renamed (Harris County Domed Stadium to Astrodome in 1965, Colt .45s to Astros in 1965 as well). The Astroturf was installed in 1966 after Monsanto was approached by the Astros and Judge Roy Hofheinz. The name "Astroturf" wasn't even patented and trademarked until 1967, 2 years after the team changed the name.

Plus, since the Astros and the stadium were the first to use the artificial turf or "monofilament ribbon file product", I am sure a company like Monsanto would have been thrilled to have the Astros use part of the product name and vice versa. However, I seriously do not believe that was the case at all.

[ALR-bishop]

Oh, oh. Kevin is clouding the issue with facts :-)

Good post, Kevin

[toppcat]

I'll have to check with Kevin Glew on his source. KG is usually meticulous from what I have seen. We'll see....

[Troy Kirk]

I was just looking through some old hobby magazines and found some interesting information about this issue. Collectors in 1968 were also interested in why the Astros logos were missing from the cards. While this article doesn't answer the question entirely, it does point pretty hard at the Astros themselves as being the culprit. It wasn't long after this that all the teams banded together and forced Topps to pay them for the right to show their logos.